|
On March 25 2013 05:17 msl wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2013 05:05 The_Masked_Shrimp wrote:On March 25 2013 04:57 McBengt wrote:On March 25 2013 04:51 The_Masked_Shrimp wrote:On March 25 2013 04:46 McBengt wrote:On March 25 2013 04:41 The_Masked_Shrimp wrote:
For Atheists I never understood them either. "the absence of proof is not a proof of absence", never understood the counterarguments to this sentence.
You seem to have misunderstood a fundamental tenet of atheism. thank you so much your post helpt me to isolate my fundamental misunderstanding in a very clear and unequivocal way ^^ It has been stated, hundreds, if not thousands of times in various threads on this very site. But I shall go over it again. Atheism does not assert that there is no god. It makes the claim that there is not enough evidence to support the belief in a god, that those who claim one or more exist have not met their burden of proof. It claims that until sufficient evidence is presented, there is no reason to believe that a god exists, any more than bigfoot, trolls, dragons, etc. I don't bring a gun and a suit of flame-retardant material every time I leave my house, because living my life as if dragons existed makes no sense when there is no proof to suggest that they do. Living my life as if a god existed makes no more or less sense than dragons. Atheists blindly reject all existence of gods just like believer blindly believe ( I don't mean it harshly, didn't find another way to formulate it ). I think people are still debating on the exact signification of atheists, so let's not be picky on the term and just focus on the "absence of proof" thing ^^ Thats just incorrect. Atheists actually look for proof, see that there is none and therefore do not act as if there is any.
Looking for proof? Why? Evidence should suffice to justify belief, and there is evidence of God's existence. Whether you personally accept it as "good" evidence or enough evidence is another argument entirely. But asking for absolute proof before you believe sounds like you're putting higher standards on the belief in God than most people put into anything. 99% of what you believe is without proof (you personally do not possess the proof) but that doesn't bother you in the slightest (I would assume).
|
For anyone that has heard of the Navigators (a Christian discipleship program), i went on a Colorado retreat to a lake of theirs where they serve children in the summer. It got burned up in the wildfires so we went to help aid, and it was the most breaktaking experience with God i've had in a long time. :D
|
On March 25 2013 05:13 Xiphias wrote:
The principle of faith - to hope that something exists that is not seen nor experienced - is well embedded within all human beings. You have done a great deal of things in your life without knowing the outcome, but only hoping for it. Would a farmer sow without hoping it would grow? Would you ever turn on the light switch if you did not think it would be light? At some early point in your life you did this by means of faith, without knowing it would happen. In fact, you still do this by faith (back up by a lot of past experience) since the bulb may be out, or the power may be down.
I'm sorry but this makes no sense at all. The child flipping the switch, saw that when his parents flipped it a light came on, the farmer is sowing seeds because he saw other people do it, and he also has some understanding of the fact that plants come from seeds. They are doing these actions for a reason and are not based on faith at all. The hypotheses of the switch producing light and the seeds producing crops are also testable
|
In the bible at the beggining says that the problem with knowledge without god or that denies god, is that usually leads to arrogange, smart people can turn into arrogants because they think they know more than anybody else, they end up thinking that there is no need to listen to what others have to say, that in itself is self-defeating, they become their own barriers in their search of knowledge. Their inability to listen to someone else's ideas leads to enlightened ignorance, the sum of their ideas even if it's a large sum could be based in a central idea that was wrong all along but they never noticed, even though everybody told them they were wrong at the core. They could die just like Christopher Columbus did, until the very last moment he though he arrived at the other side of India, even when everybody told him he was in a new land all along... This does not only apply to the so called 'debate' in this thread, but to every aspect of life, I see so many economists on the news or other types of people that for not having an open mind keep repeating their same wrong ideas over and over, it seems incredible that some people don't catch up with the world, just go to any thread about for example the Iraq war and you will see smart persons who still believe that somehow the war was to bring the iraqui's 'democracy' (I don't want to start a controvery it's just the example that comes to my mind) when anybody else can see that that was not the point... Putting arrogance away is a great thing in the search of knowledge, remenber how many scientists died thinking they were right about a particular idea and how they weren't able to admit it even though everybody told them and you will see that the greatest mind can still be fooled by the most simple thing.
Somtimes I think about this when I see a thread like this, no offense, where smart people keep 'debating' such a thing as the proof of god's existence, if he does indeed exist and you believe then you don't need proof, if you think the contrary then no proof will convince you because that is how faith works, and in the bible says that god works with the law of nature, more or less, so you can't expect a miracle that goes against that like some dude growing an arm back, because meat means nothing. What if a being after billions of years of evolution could create life with a simple though? Impossible? How would you know? The universe has been going on forever, our knowledge of it means nothing, so dismissing something because it's not making wounded people grow limbs back is, having a closed mind to say the least.
This thread is a waste of time. See the posts beneath this for further proof of mindless arguments.
|
On March 25 2013 05:23 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2013 05:17 msl wrote:On March 25 2013 05:05 The_Masked_Shrimp wrote:On March 25 2013 04:57 McBengt wrote:On March 25 2013 04:51 The_Masked_Shrimp wrote:On March 25 2013 04:46 McBengt wrote:On March 25 2013 04:41 The_Masked_Shrimp wrote:
For Atheists I never understood them either. "the absence of proof is not a proof of absence", never understood the counterarguments to this sentence.
You seem to have misunderstood a fundamental tenet of atheism. thank you so much your post helpt me to isolate my fundamental misunderstanding in a very clear and unequivocal way ^^ It has been stated, hundreds, if not thousands of times in various threads on this very site. But I shall go over it again. Atheism does not assert that there is no god. It makes the claim that there is not enough evidence to support the belief in a god, that those who claim one or more exist have not met their burden of proof. It claims that until sufficient evidence is presented, there is no reason to believe that a god exists, any more than bigfoot, trolls, dragons, etc. I don't bring a gun and a suit of flame-retardant material every time I leave my house, because living my life as if dragons existed makes no sense when there is no proof to suggest that they do. Living my life as if a god existed makes no more or less sense than dragons. Atheists blindly reject all existence of gods just like believer blindly believe ( I don't mean it harshly, didn't find another way to formulate it ). I think people are still debating on the exact signification of atheists, so let's not be picky on the term and just focus on the "absence of proof" thing ^^ Thats just incorrect. Atheists actually look for proof, see that there is none and therefore do not act as if there is any. Looking for proof? Why? Evidence should suffice to justify belief, and there is evidence of God's existence. Whether you personally accept it as "good" evidence or enough evidence is another argument entirely. But asking for absolute proof before you believe sounds like you're putting higher standards on the belief in God than most people put into anything. 99% of what you believe is without proof (you personally do not possess the proof) but that doesn't bother you in the slightest (I would assume).
Fair point, one should make sure to differentiate between proof and evidence. Suffice to say then, that the evidence is poor and unsatisfactory at best.
|
On March 25 2013 05:23 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2013 05:17 msl wrote:On March 25 2013 05:05 The_Masked_Shrimp wrote:On March 25 2013 04:57 McBengt wrote:On March 25 2013 04:51 The_Masked_Shrimp wrote:On March 25 2013 04:46 McBengt wrote:On March 25 2013 04:41 The_Masked_Shrimp wrote:
For Atheists I never understood them either. "the absence of proof is not a proof of absence", never understood the counterarguments to this sentence.
You seem to have misunderstood a fundamental tenet of atheism. thank you so much your post helpt me to isolate my fundamental misunderstanding in a very clear and unequivocal way ^^ It has been stated, hundreds, if not thousands of times in various threads on this very site. But I shall go over it again. Atheism does not assert that there is no god. It makes the claim that there is not enough evidence to support the belief in a god, that those who claim one or more exist have not met their burden of proof. It claims that until sufficient evidence is presented, there is no reason to believe that a god exists, any more than bigfoot, trolls, dragons, etc. I don't bring a gun and a suit of flame-retardant material every time I leave my house, because living my life as if dragons existed makes no sense when there is no proof to suggest that they do. Living my life as if a god existed makes no more or less sense than dragons. Atheists blindly reject all existence of gods just like believer blindly believe ( I don't mean it harshly, didn't find another way to formulate it ). I think people are still debating on the exact signification of atheists, so let's not be picky on the term and just focus on the "absence of proof" thing ^^ Thats just incorrect. Atheists actually look for proof, see that there is none and therefore do not act as if there is any. Looking for proof? Why? Evidence should suffice to justify belief, and there is evidence of God's existence. Whether you personally accept it as "good" evidence or enough evidence is another argument entirely. But asking for absolute proof before you believe sounds like you're putting higher standards on the belief in God than most people put into anything. 99% of what you believe is without proof (you personally do not possess the proof) but that doesn't bother you in the slightest (I would assume).
What evidence is there for God's existence?
|
On March 25 2013 05:23 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2013 05:17 msl wrote:On March 25 2013 05:05 The_Masked_Shrimp wrote:On March 25 2013 04:57 McBengt wrote:On March 25 2013 04:51 The_Masked_Shrimp wrote:On March 25 2013 04:46 McBengt wrote:On March 25 2013 04:41 The_Masked_Shrimp wrote:
For Atheists I never understood them either. "the absence of proof is not a proof of absence", never understood the counterarguments to this sentence.
You seem to have misunderstood a fundamental tenet of atheism. thank you so much your post helpt me to isolate my fundamental misunderstanding in a very clear and unequivocal way ^^ It has been stated, hundreds, if not thousands of times in various threads on this very site. But I shall go over it again. Atheism does not assert that there is no god. It makes the claim that there is not enough evidence to support the belief in a god, that those who claim one or more exist have not met their burden of proof. It claims that until sufficient evidence is presented, there is no reason to believe that a god exists, any more than bigfoot, trolls, dragons, etc. I don't bring a gun and a suit of flame-retardant material every time I leave my house, because living my life as if dragons existed makes no sense when there is no proof to suggest that they do. Living my life as if a god existed makes no more or less sense than dragons. Atheists blindly reject all existence of gods just like believer blindly believe ( I don't mean it harshly, didn't find another way to formulate it ). I think people are still debating on the exact signification of atheists, so let's not be picky on the term and just focus on the "absence of proof" thing ^^ Thats just incorrect. Atheists actually look for proof, see that there is none and therefore do not act as if there is any. Looking for proof? Why? Evidence should suffice to justify belief, and there is evidence of God's existence. Whether you personally accept it as "good" evidence or enough evidence is another argument entirely. But asking for absolute proof before you believe sounds like you're putting higher standards on the belief in God than most people put into anything. 99% of what you believe is without proof (you personally do not possess the proof) but that doesn't bother you in the slightest (I would assume).
What evidence is there that God exists?
|
On March 25 2013 05:27 McBengt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2013 05:23 sc2superfan101 wrote:On March 25 2013 05:17 msl wrote:On March 25 2013 05:05 The_Masked_Shrimp wrote:On March 25 2013 04:57 McBengt wrote:On March 25 2013 04:51 The_Masked_Shrimp wrote:On March 25 2013 04:46 McBengt wrote:On March 25 2013 04:41 The_Masked_Shrimp wrote:
For Atheists I never understood them either. "the absence of proof is not a proof of absence", never understood the counterarguments to this sentence.
You seem to have misunderstood a fundamental tenet of atheism. thank you so much your post helpt me to isolate my fundamental misunderstanding in a very clear and unequivocal way ^^ It has been stated, hundreds, if not thousands of times in various threads on this very site. But I shall go over it again. Atheism does not assert that there is no god. It makes the claim that there is not enough evidence to support the belief in a god, that those who claim one or more exist have not met their burden of proof. It claims that until sufficient evidence is presented, there is no reason to believe that a god exists, any more than bigfoot, trolls, dragons, etc. I don't bring a gun and a suit of flame-retardant material every time I leave my house, because living my life as if dragons existed makes no sense when there is no proof to suggest that they do. Living my life as if a god existed makes no more or less sense than dragons. Atheists blindly reject all existence of gods just like believer blindly believe ( I don't mean it harshly, didn't find another way to formulate it ). I think people are still debating on the exact signification of atheists, so let's not be picky on the term and just focus on the "absence of proof" thing ^^ Thats just incorrect. Atheists actually look for proof, see that there is none and therefore do not act as if there is any. Looking for proof? Why? Evidence should suffice to justify belief, and there is evidence of God's existence. Whether you personally accept it as "good" evidence or enough evidence is another argument entirely. But asking for absolute proof before you believe sounds like you're putting higher standards on the belief in God than most people put into anything. 99% of what you believe is without proof (you personally do not possess the proof) but that doesn't bother you in the slightest (I would assume). Fair point, one should make sure to differentiate between proof and evidence. Suffice to say then, that the evidence is poor and unsatisfactory at best.
For most discussions, the evidence provided would be considered astoundingly complete. Not to argue that there shouldn't be a higher standard in the God debate than any other, but the eye-witness testimony of thousands, if not millions, throughout history. The experience of miracles by thousands, if not millions. The rapid growth of the early Christian church (unparallelled by any other religion). I mean, if thirty thousand separate people all told you with absolute certainty that they had seen Person A shoot Person B, you would probably convict based on that alone. If not you, than most. It's interesting to think about though. At what point does the fact of disbelief begin tainting the evidence, just as desire to believe can taint it the other way?
|
On March 25 2013 05:31 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2013 05:23 sc2superfan101 wrote:On March 25 2013 05:17 msl wrote:On March 25 2013 05:05 The_Masked_Shrimp wrote:On March 25 2013 04:57 McBengt wrote:On March 25 2013 04:51 The_Masked_Shrimp wrote:On March 25 2013 04:46 McBengt wrote:On March 25 2013 04:41 The_Masked_Shrimp wrote:
For Atheists I never understood them either. "the absence of proof is not a proof of absence", never understood the counterarguments to this sentence.
You seem to have misunderstood a fundamental tenet of atheism. thank you so much your post helpt me to isolate my fundamental misunderstanding in a very clear and unequivocal way ^^ It has been stated, hundreds, if not thousands of times in various threads on this very site. But I shall go over it again. Atheism does not assert that there is no god. It makes the claim that there is not enough evidence to support the belief in a god, that those who claim one or more exist have not met their burden of proof. It claims that until sufficient evidence is presented, there is no reason to believe that a god exists, any more than bigfoot, trolls, dragons, etc. I don't bring a gun and a suit of flame-retardant material every time I leave my house, because living my life as if dragons existed makes no sense when there is no proof to suggest that they do. Living my life as if a god existed makes no more or less sense than dragons. Atheists blindly reject all existence of gods just like believer blindly believe ( I don't mean it harshly, didn't find another way to formulate it ). I think people are still debating on the exact signification of atheists, so let's not be picky on the term and just focus on the "absence of proof" thing ^^ Thats just incorrect. Atheists actually look for proof, see that there is none and therefore do not act as if there is any. Looking for proof? Why? Evidence should suffice to justify belief, and there is evidence of God's existence. Whether you personally accept it as "good" evidence or enough evidence is another argument entirely. But asking for absolute proof before you believe sounds like you're putting higher standards on the belief in God than most people put into anything. 99% of what you believe is without proof (you personally do not possess the proof) but that doesn't bother you in the slightest (I would assume). What evidence is there for God's existence?
Eye witness testimony is evidence, you know. Now, whether you personally consider such evidence to be "good" is beside the point. It is, in fact, evidence.
|
On March 25 2013 05:17 McBengt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2013 05:05 The_Masked_Shrimp wrote:
Atheists blindly reject all existence of gods just like believer blindly believe ( I don't mean it harshly, didn't find another way to formulate it ). I think people are still debating on the exact signification of atheists, so let's not be picky on the term and just focus on the "absence of proof" thing ^^ No, this is incorrect. Please do not spread misinformation. You are ignorant about what constitutes atheism, it has a clear definition and there is no real debate as to the meaning of the word. When you ask me not to be picky you are asking me to simply accept your erronous assertion about atheism. Sorry, no can do. Again, the abscence of proof argument is void, since atheism doesn't say what you think it says.
i wasn't trying to start an argument on atheism, so let's say you are right. Please do not call people ignorants unless you have some severe credibility proof of your own expertise (so unless you are some university teacher or got a phd in letters, don't call anyone an ignorant please, and even then don't, just because it's rude). I must admit I picked up the definition from dictionnary and after a fast lookup on internet. In my dictio. it says "one who doesn't believe in or denies the existence of an absolute being" so i made my sentence based on that, if i didn't go deep enough in my understanding of what atheism means i apologise.
When i ask you not to be picky, i just want not to start a debate on atheism because i didn't use it with a profound thinking on it.
So to correct myself i'll reformulate: i don't understand people that just choose to believe god doesn't exist, without proof of his inexistence, just as much as i don't understand believers for the same reason
|
On March 25 2013 00:51 Absentia wrote:
Why is it so important to provide empirical proof for the existence of God? The dogmatic approach to 'truth' that science frequently spouts is rather uninteresting when it's applied to every facet of human existence. One cannot simply believe that God exists; God's existence must be proven via rigorous empirical research otherwise it must be cast aside as worthless! While we're at it, let us burn our works of fiction, cast aside our leisure activities, cease our philosophising and instead dedicate our lives to the pursuit of scientific empiricism!
Science makes a category mistake by telling the theist their belief ought to be grounded by empirical research. Theists will generally not operate under providing proof for the existence of God. Belief in God is a matter of faith, not of evidence. Now belief in God can be justified to greater or lesser extents, with weaker or stronger argumentation. But why should it be a necessary feature of that belief that it be proven in accordance with scientific standards? There seems to be a bizarre normative prescription from scientists that people now ought to hold only beliefs which are rooted in empiricism. Of course, this approach is crucial in terms of scientific knowledge, but many theists quite clearly do not hold that their belief in God is a form of scientific knowledge. They might believe that God exists, but this does not belief does not constitute a knowledge of science because it is not justified in accordance with scientific standards.
Because laws around the world are created based on religion. People are killed on a daily basis because of religion. Wars are fought because of religion. All without proof. We either need to find proof of God to justify all this ridiculousness, or people need to stop believing that nonsense
|
On March 25 2013 05:34 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2013 05:31 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 25 2013 05:23 sc2superfan101 wrote:On March 25 2013 05:17 msl wrote:On March 25 2013 05:05 The_Masked_Shrimp wrote:On March 25 2013 04:57 McBengt wrote:On March 25 2013 04:51 The_Masked_Shrimp wrote:On March 25 2013 04:46 McBengt wrote:On March 25 2013 04:41 The_Masked_Shrimp wrote:
For Atheists I never understood them either. "the absence of proof is not a proof of absence", never understood the counterarguments to this sentence.
You seem to have misunderstood a fundamental tenet of atheism. thank you so much your post helpt me to isolate my fundamental misunderstanding in a very clear and unequivocal way ^^ It has been stated, hundreds, if not thousands of times in various threads on this very site. But I shall go over it again. Atheism does not assert that there is no god. It makes the claim that there is not enough evidence to support the belief in a god, that those who claim one or more exist have not met their burden of proof. It claims that until sufficient evidence is presented, there is no reason to believe that a god exists, any more than bigfoot, trolls, dragons, etc. I don't bring a gun and a suit of flame-retardant material every time I leave my house, because living my life as if dragons existed makes no sense when there is no proof to suggest that they do. Living my life as if a god existed makes no more or less sense than dragons. Atheists blindly reject all existence of gods just like believer blindly believe ( I don't mean it harshly, didn't find another way to formulate it ). I think people are still debating on the exact signification of atheists, so let's not be picky on the term and just focus on the "absence of proof" thing ^^ Thats just incorrect. Atheists actually look for proof, see that there is none and therefore do not act as if there is any. Looking for proof? Why? Evidence should suffice to justify belief, and there is evidence of God's existence. Whether you personally accept it as "good" evidence or enough evidence is another argument entirely. But asking for absolute proof before you believe sounds like you're putting higher standards on the belief in God than most people put into anything. 99% of what you believe is without proof (you personally do not possess the proof) but that doesn't bother you in the slightest (I would assume). What evidence is there for God's existence? Eye witness testimony is evidence, you know. Now, whether you personally consider such evidence to be "good" is beside the point. It is, in fact, evidence.
Fair enough, but I would like to point out there is also eye witness testimony for alien abductions, big foot, the lochness monster, and deities outside of Christianity.
|
On March 25 2013 05:34 ayaz2810 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2013 00:51 Absentia wrote:
Why is it so important to provide empirical proof for the existence of God? The dogmatic approach to 'truth' that science frequently spouts is rather uninteresting when it's applied to every facet of human existence. One cannot simply believe that God exists; God's existence must be proven via rigorous empirical research otherwise it must be cast aside as worthless! While we're at it, let us burn our works of fiction, cast aside our leisure activities, cease our philosophising and instead dedicate our lives to the pursuit of scientific empiricism!
Science makes a category mistake by telling the theist their belief ought to be grounded by empirical research. Theists will generally not operate under providing proof for the existence of God. Belief in God is a matter of faith, not of evidence. Now belief in God can be justified to greater or lesser extents, with weaker or stronger argumentation. But why should it be a necessary feature of that belief that it be proven in accordance with scientific standards? There seems to be a bizarre normative prescription from scientists that people now ought to hold only beliefs which are rooted in empiricism. Of course, this approach is crucial in terms of scientific knowledge, but many theists quite clearly do not hold that their belief in God is a form of scientific knowledge. They might believe that God exists, but this does not belief does not constitute a knowledge of science because it is not justified in accordance with scientific standards. Because laws around the world are created based on religion. People are killed on a daily basis because of religion. Wars are fought because of religion. All without proof. We either need to find proof of God to justify all this ridiculousness, or people need to stop believing that nonsense
Now that's just ridiculous. So because of the actions of some outsider, who is in no way personally connected with myself, and in many cases doesn't even share the same belief as me, nor worship the same God, I have to either provide proof immediately or disbelieve? As if my belief somehow makes me complicit in the murders. Fucking outrageous if you ask me.
|
On March 25 2013 05:33 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2013 05:27 McBengt wrote:On March 25 2013 05:23 sc2superfan101 wrote:On March 25 2013 05:17 msl wrote:On March 25 2013 05:05 The_Masked_Shrimp wrote:On March 25 2013 04:57 McBengt wrote:On March 25 2013 04:51 The_Masked_Shrimp wrote:On March 25 2013 04:46 McBengt wrote:On March 25 2013 04:41 The_Masked_Shrimp wrote:
For Atheists I never understood them either. "the absence of proof is not a proof of absence", never understood the counterarguments to this sentence.
You seem to have misunderstood a fundamental tenet of atheism. thank you so much your post helpt me to isolate my fundamental misunderstanding in a very clear and unequivocal way ^^ It has been stated, hundreds, if not thousands of times in various threads on this very site. But I shall go over it again. Atheism does not assert that there is no god. It makes the claim that there is not enough evidence to support the belief in a god, that those who claim one or more exist have not met their burden of proof. It claims that until sufficient evidence is presented, there is no reason to believe that a god exists, any more than bigfoot, trolls, dragons, etc. I don't bring a gun and a suit of flame-retardant material every time I leave my house, because living my life as if dragons existed makes no sense when there is no proof to suggest that they do. Living my life as if a god existed makes no more or less sense than dragons. Atheists blindly reject all existence of gods just like believer blindly believe ( I don't mean it harshly, didn't find another way to formulate it ). I think people are still debating on the exact signification of atheists, so let's not be picky on the term and just focus on the "absence of proof" thing ^^ Thats just incorrect. Atheists actually look for proof, see that there is none and therefore do not act as if there is any. Looking for proof? Why? Evidence should suffice to justify belief, and there is evidence of God's existence. Whether you personally accept it as "good" evidence or enough evidence is another argument entirely. But asking for absolute proof before you believe sounds like you're putting higher standards on the belief in God than most people put into anything. 99% of what you believe is without proof (you personally do not possess the proof) but that doesn't bother you in the slightest (I would assume). Fair point, one should make sure to differentiate between proof and evidence. Suffice to say then, that the evidence is poor and unsatisfactory at best. For most discussions, the evidence provided would be considered astoundingly complete. Not to argue that there shouldn't be a higher standard in the God debate than any other, but the eye-witness testimony of thousands, if not millions, throughout history. The experience of miracles by thousands, if not millions. The rapid growth of the early Christian church (unparallelled by any other religion). I mean, if thirty thousand separate people all told you with absolute certainty that they had seen Person A shoot Person B, you would probably convict based on that alone. If not you, than most. It's interesting to think about though. At what point does the fact of disbelief begin tainting the evidence, just as desire to believe can taint it the other way?
What if 1.2 billion people said person A shot person B. 1 billion people said person C shot person B. 800 million said person B was shot by an gang of people that did not include person A or C, a couple hundred million said that there is no such thing as shooting, a couple hundred million dont know what to believe exactly, but are pretty sure SOMETHING happened, and a couple hundred million more dont think there is enough evidence to convict anyone of a shooting, or indeed that anyone got shot
|
On March 25 2013 05:14 The_Masked_Shrimp wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2013 05:08 Crushinator wrote:
Atheists reject the existence of gods for a reason. An infinite number of gods are imaginable. Do you reject none of them, based on that you can't prove their inexistence? I don't reject or believe in gods; i just say that if i saw one, it could as well be some very advanced being. Hence, even with god under my eyes it couldn't possibly be an absolute proof because of the doubt. In the end it's still just a choice between believing or not. My position is "I don't know, and if I knew I'd doubt what I know" Oo
I find this to be a dishonest position. I don't think it's what you actually believe.
If I asked you what color the Statue of Liberty was, you would say "green." I would follow up with "Do you KNOW it is green?" and you would say "Yes, I have seen pictures" or "I have seen it myself."
However, can you be absolutely certain that you aren't hallucinating? Perhaps it has been painted in the meantime and no one has reported on it? It is possible, from your perspective, that the Statue of Liberty is not green, however unlikely.
The idea of absolute certainty is not just impossible to meet (for any claim ever, positive or negative), but it is also completely and utterly pointless. When somebody says they know something, they are not referring to absolute certainty, because nobody is EVER referring to absolute certainty. The only time people ever refer to absolute certainty is discussion of religion, for painfully obvious reasons.
So I will certainly assert that I know god does not exist (based on Bayesian Probability). And I think if you talked honestly you would say the same thing.
|
On March 25 2013 05:34 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2013 05:31 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 25 2013 05:23 sc2superfan101 wrote:On March 25 2013 05:17 msl wrote:On March 25 2013 05:05 The_Masked_Shrimp wrote:On March 25 2013 04:57 McBengt wrote:On March 25 2013 04:51 The_Masked_Shrimp wrote:On March 25 2013 04:46 McBengt wrote:On March 25 2013 04:41 The_Masked_Shrimp wrote:
For Atheists I never understood them either. "the absence of proof is not a proof of absence", never understood the counterarguments to this sentence.
You seem to have misunderstood a fundamental tenet of atheism. thank you so much your post helpt me to isolate my fundamental misunderstanding in a very clear and unequivocal way ^^ It has been stated, hundreds, if not thousands of times in various threads on this very site. But I shall go over it again. Atheism does not assert that there is no god. It makes the claim that there is not enough evidence to support the belief in a god, that those who claim one or more exist have not met their burden of proof. It claims that until sufficient evidence is presented, there is no reason to believe that a god exists, any more than bigfoot, trolls, dragons, etc. I don't bring a gun and a suit of flame-retardant material every time I leave my house, because living my life as if dragons existed makes no sense when there is no proof to suggest that they do. Living my life as if a god existed makes no more or less sense than dragons. Atheists blindly reject all existence of gods just like believer blindly believe ( I don't mean it harshly, didn't find another way to formulate it ). I think people are still debating on the exact signification of atheists, so let's not be picky on the term and just focus on the "absence of proof" thing ^^ Thats just incorrect. Atheists actually look for proof, see that there is none and therefore do not act as if there is any. Looking for proof? Why? Evidence should suffice to justify belief, and there is evidence of God's existence. Whether you personally accept it as "good" evidence or enough evidence is another argument entirely. But asking for absolute proof before you believe sounds like you're putting higher standards on the belief in God than most people put into anything. 99% of what you believe is without proof (you personally do not possess the proof) but that doesn't bother you in the slightest (I would assume). What evidence is there for God's existence? Eye witness testimony is evidence, you know. Now, whether you personally consider such evidence to be "good" is beside the point. It is, in fact, evidence.
Everything exists by that standard.
|
On March 25 2013 05:34 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2013 05:31 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 25 2013 05:23 sc2superfan101 wrote:On March 25 2013 05:17 msl wrote:On March 25 2013 05:05 The_Masked_Shrimp wrote:On March 25 2013 04:57 McBengt wrote:On March 25 2013 04:51 The_Masked_Shrimp wrote:On March 25 2013 04:46 McBengt wrote:On March 25 2013 04:41 The_Masked_Shrimp wrote:
For Atheists I never understood them either. "the absence of proof is not a proof of absence", never understood the counterarguments to this sentence.
You seem to have misunderstood a fundamental tenet of atheism. thank you so much your post helpt me to isolate my fundamental misunderstanding in a very clear and unequivocal way ^^ It has been stated, hundreds, if not thousands of times in various threads on this very site. But I shall go over it again. Atheism does not assert that there is no god. It makes the claim that there is not enough evidence to support the belief in a god, that those who claim one or more exist have not met their burden of proof. It claims that until sufficient evidence is presented, there is no reason to believe that a god exists, any more than bigfoot, trolls, dragons, etc. I don't bring a gun and a suit of flame-retardant material every time I leave my house, because living my life as if dragons existed makes no sense when there is no proof to suggest that they do. Living my life as if a god existed makes no more or less sense than dragons. Atheists blindly reject all existence of gods just like believer blindly believe ( I don't mean it harshly, didn't find another way to formulate it ). I think people are still debating on the exact signification of atheists, so let's not be picky on the term and just focus on the "absence of proof" thing ^^ Thats just incorrect. Atheists actually look for proof, see that there is none and therefore do not act as if there is any. Looking for proof? Why? Evidence should suffice to justify belief, and there is evidence of God's existence. Whether you personally accept it as "good" evidence or enough evidence is another argument entirely. But asking for absolute proof before you believe sounds like you're putting higher standards on the belief in God than most people put into anything. 99% of what you believe is without proof (you personally do not possess the proof) but that doesn't bother you in the slightest (I would assume). What evidence is there for God's existence? Eye witness testimony is evidence, you know. Now, whether you personally consider such evidence to be "good" is beside the point. It is, in fact, evidence.
So there's "evidence" for every deity and mythical being ever existing? Because of course, there are eyewitness accounts of everything, from Zeus to UFOs. You're saying that god is as well-defended as the Loch Ness Monster and ghosts? You realize that someone claiming they saw something magical doesn't mean it wasn't a hallucination or a dream or wishful thinking, right?
This is not a matter of good evidence vs. bad evidence. One needs to assess the claim first, to see if it's even evidence to begin with. It's not a good argument, and so it's not evidence at all.
|
Straight from wikipedia (don't bash me for this, but it is pretty straight-forward)
Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1][2] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[3][4][5] Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[4][5][6][7] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[8][9] which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.[9][10]
So Atheism does indeed include the view that GOD does NOT exist. Unless you want to label that as something other than atheism.
Now as to the question of why a person should act or not act based on something which can't be proven, I agree that religion is comparable to superstitions (a line of argument taken by many atheists). A black cat crossing your path may or may not result in misfortune.
But in case of superstitions there is empirical proof of something being real or not real. You will find people verifying that a black cat crosses their path all the time but nothing bad really happened to them. But in case of religion, one of the primary factors which drives people to practice it is that there is no one who can come back from the dead and re-assure them that there is no afterlife and all this stuff about God is just a myth.
I know that just goes back to the lack of empirical proof problem. We very well may never have empirical proof that God does or doesn't exist or what happens after we die. But one rational thing about being religious is that at least you are safe in case God does exist, the chances of which are 50% based on the established
"lack of proof". Now since there is at least some presented evidence (albeit weak) ie. the existence of people claiming to be prophets and claiming the existence of God and a notion of punishment/reward in the afterlife, I don't see why one shouldn't err on the side of caution.
|
On March 25 2013 05:38 Tewks44 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2013 05:34 sc2superfan101 wrote:On March 25 2013 05:31 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 25 2013 05:23 sc2superfan101 wrote:On March 25 2013 05:17 msl wrote:On March 25 2013 05:05 The_Masked_Shrimp wrote:On March 25 2013 04:57 McBengt wrote:On March 25 2013 04:51 The_Masked_Shrimp wrote:On March 25 2013 04:46 McBengt wrote:On March 25 2013 04:41 The_Masked_Shrimp wrote:
For Atheists I never understood them either. "the absence of proof is not a proof of absence", never understood the counterarguments to this sentence.
You seem to have misunderstood a fundamental tenet of atheism. thank you so much your post helpt me to isolate my fundamental misunderstanding in a very clear and unequivocal way ^^ It has been stated, hundreds, if not thousands of times in various threads on this very site. But I shall go over it again. Atheism does not assert that there is no god. It makes the claim that there is not enough evidence to support the belief in a god, that those who claim one or more exist have not met their burden of proof. It claims that until sufficient evidence is presented, there is no reason to believe that a god exists, any more than bigfoot, trolls, dragons, etc. I don't bring a gun and a suit of flame-retardant material every time I leave my house, because living my life as if dragons existed makes no sense when there is no proof to suggest that they do. Living my life as if a god existed makes no more or less sense than dragons. Atheists blindly reject all existence of gods just like believer blindly believe ( I don't mean it harshly, didn't find another way to formulate it ). I think people are still debating on the exact signification of atheists, so let's not be picky on the term and just focus on the "absence of proof" thing ^^ Thats just incorrect. Atheists actually look for proof, see that there is none and therefore do not act as if there is any. Looking for proof? Why? Evidence should suffice to justify belief, and there is evidence of God's existence. Whether you personally accept it as "good" evidence or enough evidence is another argument entirely. But asking for absolute proof before you believe sounds like you're putting higher standards on the belief in God than most people put into anything. 99% of what you believe is without proof (you personally do not possess the proof) but that doesn't bother you in the slightest (I would assume). What evidence is there for God's existence? Eye witness testimony is evidence, you know. Now, whether you personally consider such evidence to be "good" is beside the point. It is, in fact, evidence. Fair enough, but I would like to point out there is also eye witness testimony for alien abductions, big foot, the lochness monster, and deities outside of Christianity.
Indeed there is. And thus we have to question the reliability of the people giving the testimonies, the wealth of testimony available, and the historical existence (if any) of coinciding testimonies.
Christianity has more reliable witnesses, more testimonies, and more witnesses throughout history than any of those things. While that in of itself proves nothing, it does provide us with good reason to consider the existence of eye-witness testimony in the case of Christianity to be more valid than in those other instances.
|
On March 25 2013 05:33 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2013 05:27 McBengt wrote:On March 25 2013 05:23 sc2superfan101 wrote:On March 25 2013 05:17 msl wrote:On March 25 2013 05:05 The_Masked_Shrimp wrote:On March 25 2013 04:57 McBengt wrote:On March 25 2013 04:51 The_Masked_Shrimp wrote:On March 25 2013 04:46 McBengt wrote:On March 25 2013 04:41 The_Masked_Shrimp wrote:
For Atheists I never understood them either. "the absence of proof is not a proof of absence", never understood the counterarguments to this sentence.
You seem to have misunderstood a fundamental tenet of atheism. thank you so much your post helpt me to isolate my fundamental misunderstanding in a very clear and unequivocal way ^^ It has been stated, hundreds, if not thousands of times in various threads on this very site. But I shall go over it again. Atheism does not assert that there is no god. It makes the claim that there is not enough evidence to support the belief in a god, that those who claim one or more exist have not met their burden of proof. It claims that until sufficient evidence is presented, there is no reason to believe that a god exists, any more than bigfoot, trolls, dragons, etc. I don't bring a gun and a suit of flame-retardant material every time I leave my house, because living my life as if dragons existed makes no sense when there is no proof to suggest that they do. Living my life as if a god existed makes no more or less sense than dragons. Atheists blindly reject all existence of gods just like believer blindly believe ( I don't mean it harshly, didn't find another way to formulate it ). I think people are still debating on the exact signification of atheists, so let's not be picky on the term and just focus on the "absence of proof" thing ^^ Thats just incorrect. Atheists actually look for proof, see that there is none and therefore do not act as if there is any. Looking for proof? Why? Evidence should suffice to justify belief, and there is evidence of God's existence. Whether you personally accept it as "good" evidence or enough evidence is another argument entirely. But asking for absolute proof before you believe sounds like you're putting higher standards on the belief in God than most people put into anything. 99% of what you believe is without proof (you personally do not possess the proof) but that doesn't bother you in the slightest (I would assume). Fair point, one should make sure to differentiate between proof and evidence. Suffice to say then, that the evidence is poor and unsatisfactory at best. For most discussions, the evidence provided would be considered astoundingly complete. Not to argue that there shouldn't be a higher standard in the God debate than any other, but the eye-witness testimony of thousands, if not millions, throughout history. The experience of miracles by thousands, if not millions. The rapid growth of the early Christian church (unparallelled by any other religion). I mean, if thirty thousand separate people all told you with absolute certainty that they had seen Person A shoot Person B, you would probably convict based on that alone. If not you, than most. It's interesting to think about though. At what point does the fact of disbelief begin tainting the evidence, just as desire to believe can taint it the other way?
I don't mean to come off as obtuse here, but in your example of the murder, I would hold off the verdict until the forensics team had filed their report. That, to me, would hold far more weight than any amount of witnesses. People lie, chemistry and DNA, as a general rule, do not. If there was no technical evidence to bind the person to crime, I would acquit him.
Also, there is one thing about your example which does not quite resonate with me. In the god debate, people have a vested interest in believing, in trying to convince others or themselves that what they say is true. A random witness in a trial will usually try to be as truthful as possible, to avoid charges of perjury, not caring much either way whether the accused is convicted or not. A religious assertion is more often than not backed also by the wish for it to be true, which distorts perception and clouds judgement. I would say that a witness in a trial is typically more objective than a person who says that they had a religious experience or communed with the divine.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
