Angels & Demons
discussion
Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion?
I think you mean the defendants should present evidence to rebut their case...
cs wrote: "This post does look a bit like you are now back tracking and trying to bring Shannon onside."Having conversed in the thread with Shannon for some time(albeit with a gap in the middle) I find this sentence hilarious. Though I think I should really leave Shannon to address it fully
Well ....
While I try to be open-minded, I'm definitely not .... Impressionable.
While I try to be open-minded, I'm definitely not .... Impressionable.
yup, I got that impression when you said you used to upset your sunday school teacher, especially when said teacher tried teaching you that Jesus loved little boys more than little girls.(I'm really hoping that was you and not someone else who I've got confused with you...)
Hazel wrote: "yup, I got that impression when you said you used to upset your sunday school teacher, especially when said teacher tried teaching you that Jesus loved little boys more than little girls.
(I'm rea..."
Ha! No. That was totally and completely me. I also gave my confirmation teacher/pastor fits when he tried to tell me that United Methodists were better than Catholics, Baptists, etc... and asked him to give me Bible citations for that statement.
"In fact, pastor, I don't believe the Bible states that United Methodists are better. If anything, it would be that the Jews are better, since there weren't even Methodists at the time and since Jesus was Jewish."
Oh, the flashbacks I'm having. And ... I was only 13 or 14 when the United Methodists are better debate occurred. Wow!
(I'm rea..."
Ha! No. That was totally and completely me. I also gave my confirmation teacher/pastor fits when he tried to tell me that United Methodists were better than Catholics, Baptists, etc... and asked him to give me Bible citations for that statement.
"In fact, pastor, I don't believe the Bible states that United Methodists are better. If anything, it would be that the Jews are better, since there weren't even Methodists at the time and since Jesus was Jewish."
Oh, the flashbacks I'm having. And ... I was only 13 or 14 when the United Methodists are better debate occurred. Wow!
cs wrote: "Quote philosophy now: 'Another familiar strategy of atheists is to insist that the burden of proof falls on the believer. If that’s right, it may allow the New Atheists to avoid evidentialism’s requirements, and rationally maintain atheism without evidence'. But is it right? I don't think so. It's not a get out of jail free card in these debates. "
I'm sorry, but this is fundamental, and, much like solipsism, it is a conversation ender for me if you don't get it. If someone makes a claim about the existence of something, then it is they who need to provide the evidence. As Shanna pointed out it is the same concept which prevents vexatious litigation. If you expect atheists to prove the non-existence of god, why do you not have to prove the non-existence of every deity you don't believe in, for example the FSM?
This concept has been done to death earlier in the thread....you are welcome to go back and read it. It involved fridges.
Shannon wrote: "Hazel wrote: "yup, I got that impression when you said you used to upset your sunday school teacher, especially when said teacher tried teaching you that Jesus loved little boys more than little gi..."Well don the 13/14 year old you Shannon :-)) It takes guts to do that.
Shannon wrote: "Ha! No. That was totally and completely me. I also gave my confirmation teacher/pastor fits when he tried to tell me that United Methodists were better than Catholics, Baptists, etc... and asked him to give me Bible citations for that statement. ":D
Shannon wrote: "Hazel wrote: "yup, I got that impression when you said you used to upset your sunday school teacher, especially when said teacher tried teaching you that Jesus loved little boys more than little gi..."oh yeah, I remember you saying that before too. I recall grinning then too.
@Shannon, can I recommend a book you might be interested in? Why I Believed
It is not an attempt to dissuade you from your beliefs, and throughout the book the author says he wishes he still has his faith, but it is an interesting look at the process of moving from (a very strong) faith to atheism.
I got the Kindle version on Amazon at a very reasonable price (it was only a $ or two from memory).
Cerebus wrote: "cs wrote: "Quote philosophy now: 'Another familiar strategy of atheists is to insist that the burden of proof falls on the believer. If that’s right, it may allow the New Atheists to avoid evidenti..."You are doing a Hazel. This started when I suggested that one can believe in God without religion. Hazel said that this is not possible, but, and if we are talking about proof, she could not prove this, It was just her belief (or theory). She can't prove it because there are people who do believe in a god but have no religion.
You said 'If someone makes a claim' well I have never made a claim. You are still doing a Hazel, not understanding belief. I believe there is a God, I do not claim that there is one.
Hazel believes that there is no God but she will hypothetically wait until future generations can confirm this for her. Since I do NOT claim there is a god and Hazel or you cannot know that there is not a god this the 'burden of proof' argument that Shanna is trying to use does not work.
Even if I went along with your request for proof (rather than just saying why I believe)and I had no proof, my lack of evidence for proving a god is not evidence for you to claim that there is no god.
If I don't get it it's a conversation ender for you. Again this sounds like Hazel. You are confusing 'I don't get it' with 'I don't agree with it'.
cs wrote: "You are doing a Hazel. This started when I suggested that one can believe in God without religion. Hazel said that this is not possible, but, and if we are talking about proof, she could not prove this, It was just her belief (or theory). She can't prove it because there are people who do believe in a god but have no religion. You said 'If someone makes a claim' well I have never made a claim. You are still doing a Hazel, not understanding belief. I believe there is a God, I do not claim that there is one. "
Can I suggest you reread my comment and point out to me where I say you are claiming there is a god? You posted a quote stating that it is somehow invalid for atheists to say the burden of proof lies with those making the claim. I was addressing that quote. I don't care if you believe or not, nor whether you can provide evidence or not, but you cannot suggest, via the quote you provided, that there is somehow a burden of proof on atheists to prove that there is no god.
cs said :"Even if I went along with your request for proof (rather than just saying why I believe)and I had no proof...."
I DID NOT REQUEST YOU PROVIDE PROOF. I requested you familiarise yourself with the discussion on why the burden of proof relies on the person making a claim....any claim.....
cs said: "..., my lack of evidence for proving a god is not evidence for you to claim that there is no god. "
Once again, there is no burden of proof for me to prove there is no god. If someone, anyone, claims that there is, that's fine, they can knock themselves out, but at no point am I making a claim there is no god, I am saying that it is a belief I do not hold. If we as humans were expected to disprove every belief we do not hold then we would get nothing else done in life. Do you believe I have a hippopotamus as a pet, and is there a burden of proof on you to prove I don't? Do you care? Substitute 'a hippopotamus' for 'god' and 'deity' for 'pet' and you will see exactly where I am coming from in relation to you. I don't care if you believe or not, and I don't care if you can prove it or not *but* if at any stage in this discussion you make any claim which is predicated on the existence of god (e.g. there is a universe because god created it), then you will of course be expected to provide evidence (WHETHER IT CONVINCES US OR NOT) for god, otherwise your argument is invalid.
cs said: "If I don't get it it's a conversation ender for you. Again this sounds like Hazel. You are confusing 'I don't get it' with 'I don't agree with it'."
For something as fundamental as the burden of proof resting with the person making the claim (again IN THE CONTEXT OF YOUR QUOTE before you erroneously claim again that I was asking you to prove god), it is actually a case of 'getting it' or not. If you don't agree with it then you don't get it. Again, before you put words in my mouth that I didn't say, I am not stating this applies to all of the discussion, there are plenty of things we can legitimately disagree (or 'heaven' forbid, agree) on, but this is more fundamental than that.
As for 'conversation ender', it does not mean I am saying you should not contribute, or continue to discuss in the thread, or even that I will no longer respond to you, it simply means that there is no point discussing that particular point with you, in the same way there is no point discussing solipsism with someone who subscribes to that worldview, as by definition there is nothing that can progress the discussion on that point.
Can I ask is there something that prevents you as a believer agreeing with *anything* a non-believer says?
Wow! I'm impressed this thread is still going. I bowed out when it briefly got ugly, somewhere back in the 30's, but thought if it made it to 50 I'd duck back in to see how it was going.
Seems like things have settled down and stayed civil, even if the argument is still going round and round.
I'm still staying with my choice of science over the man in the sky and I still say Dan Brown gets needlessly ragged on, but the controversy helps sales and he probably has kids to put through college .
Well, good luck with it. If you guys make it to 100, you should have a party or some kind of special, like they do on TV.
Travis wrote: "...some kind of special, like they do on TV. "You mean like the UFC don't you? :)
cs wrote: " I believe there is a God, I do not claim that there is one."How can you believe in something without claiming it exists? That's an absurd statement.
If you believe there is a god, there is only one honest answer to the question "Does god exist", which is "Yes" - so any belief *must* naturally generate a claim for existence.
By believing in something - God, Jesus, UFOs, The Loch Ness Monster - you are, by default making a claim that it exists - if it doesn't, why do you believe in it? To try and deny that is utterly ludicrous.
Cerebus wrote: "Travis wrote: "...some kind of special, like they do on TV. "You mean like the UFC don't you? :)"
Actually, I was thinking more like one of the Charlie Brown Holiday specials.
Actually cs, I didn't say it wasn't possible so much, and if I did use those words, i apologise, but what I have been trying to get across is that a) belief in a god, even without being a member of an institutional religion still counts as religion, thus belief in god canot be seperated from religion
b) there is no evidence that god exists, and as you claim to believe in such, then the onus of proof is on you, or other believers to prove it.
c) if there is no evidence that god exists, there is no rational reason to assume that it does. (You prove the irrationality by saying you believe in god, but don't claim he exists, I refer you to Shauns posts as to why this is specious)
d) if there is no rational reason to assume that god exists, as theres no proof for it, then the evidence we do have points to god being a product of religious thinking. Religion created god.
Thus, god cannot be separate from religion, given the evidence that we currently have.
If someone proves god exists, I'll spin on a sixpence. But there is no rational reason to assume that existence without any evidence, thus I don't hold the belief in god, as I reject the claim that the belief is based on. I don't need to disprove god, I simply reject the claim that someone else makes as they have no proof for it, in the same way as I wouldn't believe someone was going to give me £1,000,000 for carrying out some sort of humiliating task, unless they showed me the money first.
Shaun wrote: "cs wrote: " I believe there is a God, I do not claim that there is one."How can you believe in something without claiming it exists? That's an absurd statement.
If you believe there is a god, t..."
Cerebus, Hazel and now you are not understanding. Maybe this is part my fault for not explaining well enough. If there any others listening in that believe in a god, maybe they can explain better that me.
But I will at the risk of repeting myself have another go.
If I say that from the information I have accumalated over the years I believe that there is life on other planets, I am NOT saying that there IS life on other planets. I believe there is. If I was a scientist I would think that it was worth looking into further. If I did not believe then I would not waste time.
Quote you: 'How can you believe in something without claiming it exists? That's an absurd statement'.
It is not an absured statement. I guess it is something that you are not understanding. If your mother, partner etc. tells you something do you, IN GENERAL believe them or ask for proof?
If its an outrageous claim, or an extraordinary claim, I ask for proof, even if it were my mother claiming it. I called my mother on Santa Clause, afterall. If its that we're having beef for dinner, I'm generally happy to accept it.That a deity exists is an extraordinary claim.
Stating you believe in said deity leads to the claim that a deity exists, because you cannot believe it without someone telling you it does. The belief is based on a claim. Much like the belief in alien life on another planet/s is based on the claim that statistically speaking it is unlikely that of the billions and billions of planets in the universe, we're the only one with life.
A belief is based squarely on a claim.
'Stating you believe in said deity leads to the claim that a deity exists'In your world where philosophy rules then I guess it does, but step outside of that for a moment and you will see that is does not.
how many times. This is NOT about philosophy. This is about evidence.You can't believe in something you haven't been told about. And unless you were told that it was true, or have come to the conclusion that it was true, you wouldn't believe in it.
Are you actually going to make us repeat this ad infinitum, or are you going to accept that if you'd never been told about god, if a claim had never been made to you in relation to such a thing, you wouldn't believe in it. And therefore there is a claim that god exists, on which your belief is based, which had to be made for you to even consider believing it, and that belief, or more importantly, the claim it is based on holds no water until proof is presented for it. and thus any claim made about god, such as god can be separate to religion, also holds no water until there is proof that god exists.
It is the claim that god can exist without religion that is philosophical, not the understanding that belief is rooted in claims. God existing without religion is a philosophical concern, as philosophically speaking, yes, if god exists, then it does not require belief or religion, or anything like that for it to be in existence. But outside of philosophy, and in the real world, the claim needs proof to hold water as a reasonable assertion.
Or to put it another way, in the real world, you put forward the hypothesis that god can exist separate to religion. The problem with that hypothesis is that it presumes the existence of god, so we should reduce it back, as we can't investigate that hypothesis without first investigating a more basic hypothesis, which in this case would be "god exists". So, until the hypothesis that god exists gains support and proof, you cannot expect any other hypothesis that relies on the results of the first, more basic, one to be taken seriously, or given any credence.
But yes, philosophically speaking, if (and its a big if) god were real, then it would be real without anyone having to believe in it.
I understand what you are saying and you don't need to repeat it ad infinitum, but I do not agree. Quote Hazel; 'You can't believe in something you haven't been told about. And unless you were told that it was true, or have come to the conclusion that it was true, you wouldn't believe in it'.
This is playing with words, philosophy at it's best.
If I was told that there was a god and so that is why I believe, and the person that told me was told by someone as well, who told the first person. Are we not back to the 'big bang' dilemma
Belief is the middle ground between what we know and and what we assume.
there is no word play there. If you'd have been raised with no knowledge of god, you wouldn't believe in it, as such, your belief is based on learning about god, and being told that he is there. Your belief is based on a claim. No word play, just simple logic.The first person wasn't told, the first person made it up as a way of explaining things that they didn't have the capacity to understand in the way we do now, and over time, the supernatural explanations became more complex and developed from things like spirits up into gods, and then onwards into systems of belief. Until someone proves there is a god, this logic is reasonable, especially as we have seen knew religions created, and seen the process. Scientology is an example.
And even if the first person had spoken directly with a god, why is there now no proof of that? Even if the first person did speak to god, you have to prove that, otherwise, its reasonable to assume the first person, or people (it may have been a group build) simply made it up from whole cloth, in order to create a paradigm they were happy with, or to understand the world without the tools and understanding we have developed over the last few hundred years.
Belief is not middle ground, the middle ground is "I don't know", which is a far more honest way of being. Unsubstantiated claims on which beliefs are based are at one extreme, facts are at the other, and the unknown is in the middle, which is where we say I don't know. Going on from I don't know to making claims about what it must be, without providing proof is both specious and disingenuous, as well as sophistry at its best.
I haven't been playing with words. You're employing sophistry in an attempt to detract from the logic behind my words.
Only in religion can you claim to have an imaginary friend and society at large is supposed to let it slide. In fact, you can't get elected president unless you convince people you believe in the same imaginary friend that they do.
Travis wrote: "Only in religion can you claim to have an imaginary friend and society at large is supposed to let it slide. In fact, you can't get elected president unless you convince people you believe in the ..."
http://www.scarborougheveningnews.co....
Yet, if that guy had replaced 'aliens' with 'angels', the media would be defending him.
Hazel wrote: "there is no word play there. If you'd have been raised with no knowledge of god, you wouldn't believe in it, as such, your belief is based on learning about god, and being told that he is there. Yo..."'The first person wasn't told, the first person made it up' Ha Ha. Do you believe this or have you got proof. Maybe God told the first person.
Like the Big Bang we don't seem to be able to get past the first person, so your statement 'You can't believe in something you haven't been told about'. Does not stand up.
Quote Hazel: I haven't been playing with words. You're employing sophistry in an attempt to detract from the logic behind my words.
‘Sophists’ were a category of teachers who specialized in using the tools of philosophy.
Hazel wrote: "Travis wrote: "Only in religion can you claim to have an imaginary friend and society at large is supposed to let it slide. In fact, you can't get elected president unless you convince people you ..."
You have got that wrong, it is Hazel who claims the friend is imaginary. I don't know.
No, religion has announced/claimed there is an imaginary friend and everyone goes along with it.That's me stating it, as well as what religion basically boils down to.
On one hand, it's brilliant, on the other, I find it deeply disturbing, as people will vote for Rick Santorum, but not the guy that believes in aliens.
and, cs, this isn't directed at you per say, just a general observation on my part.
cs wrote: "I don't know"If you have doubt, doesn't that mean you don't really believe?
cs wrote: "Hazel wrote: "there is no word play there. If you'd have been raised with no knowledge of god, you wouldn't believe in it, as such, your belief is based on learning about god, and being told that h..."of course my statement stands up. You, you personally, cannot hold a belief in relation to something you have never been told about. You are the one who started on the "what about the first person" thing. But you see, there was no first person, not really, I was trying to put things the way you seem to think. There was no first person, beliefs and religions evolved. We have evidence of how religion comes about, there have been several examples since recorded history began.
The "first person" is irrelevant, as there is still no proof for god existing, and as such, what you were told to give you the belief is still an unsubstantiated claim.
Well done, you know what sophists were, however the definition of sophistry is:
soph·ist·ry [sof-uh-stree] Show IPA
noun, plural -ries.
1.a subtle, tricky, superficially plausible, but generally fallacious method of reasoning.
2.a false argument; sophism.
the irony here, is you were using sophistry to try and denounce my calling you on using sophistry...
Oh, and the very fact you put "maybe god told the first person" suggests to me that you didn't read my post completely.
Hazel wrote: "cs wrote: "Hazel wrote: "there is no word play there. If you'd have been raised with no knowledge of god, you wouldn't believe in it, as such, your belief is based on learning about god, and being ..."I did read your post and it seems to me that you are now back tracking on what you said.
'I was trying to put things the way you seem to think'.
No you were not, you slipped up with your reply and so could not give me an answer and you are now covering up your blunder by pretending you were putting 'things' the way you think I think.
Your post 2488. this is what you said,
'The first person wasn't told, the first person made it up as a way of explaining things that they didn't have the capacity to understand in the way we do now, and over time, the supernatural explanations became more complex and developed from things like spirits up into gods, and then onwards into systems of belief. Until someone proves there is a god, this logic is reasonable, especially as we have seen knew religions created, and seen the process. Scientology is an example'.
That was your explination put your way to my question.....
'If I was told that there was a god and so that is why I believe, and the person that told me was told by someone as well, who told the first person. Are we not back to the 'big bang' dilemma'.
Checkmate.
Shaun wrote: "cs wrote: "I don't know"If you have doubt, doesn't that mean you don't really believe?"
No
cs wrote: "Hazel wrote: "cs wrote: "Hazel wrote: "there is no word play there. If you'd have been raised with no knowledge of god, you wouldn't believe in it, as such, your belief is based on learning about g..."checkmate? No, not checkmate. but OK, you got me, human vanity took over for a second, and I slipped up, and the first reply was not what I should have said, the second is what I wanted to say, I'm not so proud that I can't admit that I made a mistake. However, my being susceptible to human error and pride doesn't detract from the fact that the "first person" is irrelevant, as you're still basing your belief on an unsubstantiated claim. You can claim the "first person" was told by god, and I'd say prove it, until you do, you're making another unsubstantiated claim. No matter what happened to bring about belief in god, there is no proof of god existing, thus the claim is still unsubstantiated and the god hypothesis remains unsupported. And seeing as "god told the first person" still relies on the assumption of gods existence, it still brings us back to "does god exist?" and without proof of that, the claim that god told the "first person" is just as pointless, and holds as little water, as the claim that god and religion can be separate.
As for back to the big bang, there is evidence for that, to the point that physicists say we can say with almost complete certainty that that's what happened. Or did you not watch the lecture that I posted?
Cerebus wrote: " "In other words, brain science has discredited religion and philosophy, but don't worry: Morality won't disappear. Brain science is offering itself as the new authority. What's moral, in the new w..."Interesting article.
I would rather live in a world without religion because, with all due respect, I think that religion is just a way of answering questions that Science isn't able to answer just yet.
cs wrote: "Shaun wrote: "cs wrote: "I don't know"If you have doubt, doesn't that mean you don't really believe?"
No"
So, you have doubts that something is true but choose to believe in it anyway?
What's your reason for this?
I mean, if you have a friend who might be imaginary, but might not be, but you honestly can't tell the difference, he has never interacted with you at a personal level, he has never offered you any evidence of his existence, isn't somewhat irrational to carry on as if he is definitely real?
Ok not checkmate and I know what we think does not all ways come out as we intend on the printed page. Sometimes the posts come thick and fast and I have a job keeping up, and type in a rush if time is limited.I think that if one argues from the belief standpoint or the science or philosophy standpoint all have flaws. Wheather the person replying has enough knowledge of either or each can be how a debate is 'won' or 'lost', although even if a debate is 'won' it does not mean the winner was correct, it could be that they are just better at debating.
That said, and giving an example about the big bang; No one knows what triggered the big bang, but there are plenty of theories, one being a creator which is the one I go with, but I am willing to have my mind changed, thats why I read the occasional Stephen Hawking and some others. Hawking does not think science is going to come up with the answer, at least not for a very long time and that is why in his last book he turned to philosophy for the answers. In that book he has given what he 'believes' (if that is the correct word) is the answer. Of course many scientists do not agree with him.
Me? well he could be right, but his answer still leaves a question similar to, 'what was before the big bang' or who 'created the creator'.
For ME the creator is our best answer and in some ways the easiest to understand. Although I can't prove this I can still accept it because science or philosophy can't give me anything better.
The hardest thing for me to understand is this......if we ARE alone in the universe and earth is destroyed......... what was it all about?
I assume you mean what is the meaning of life, the universe, and everything, and that the answer 42 won't suffice?
Maybe, and maybe we are unable to ask the the Ultimate Question.
I never get the idea that an omnipotent bein is seen as as easiest to understand and best answer to big questions, as 'things happen and they cause other things to happen' seems to be a more basic and straightforward answer.I'm not taking a poke at religion here, just that idea always seemed odd, as the 'man in the sky' solution is a fairly elaborate one and 'things happen' is pretty basic and yet in so many cases seen as the 'unbelievable' answer.
I get that the 'man in the sky' is more emotional comforting', than 'things happen', but it just seems odd.
If you are wet you don't say 'the magic water elves did it', you say 'I got rained on'.
Just one of those weird ways people think that keeps me occupied when there's nothing good on TV.
Travis wrote: "I never get the idea that an omnipotent bein is seen as as easiest to understand and best answer to big questions, as 'things happen and they cause other things to happen' seems to be a more basic ..."That's because you know it's rain.
cs wrote: "Travis wrote: "I never get the idea that an omnipotent bein is seen as as easiest to understand and best answer to big questions, as 'things happen and they cause other things to happen' seems to b..."And yet every time science and religion have had conflicting answers to a question - what causes disease, what causes earthquakes, whether the earth moves, the age of the earth, etc etc etc - and that question has been resolved it has *always* been resolved in favour of science.
Every.
Single.
Time.
With a track record like that, religion seems a poor horse to back in any race.
What was religions answer, as to what caused earthquakes?
cs wrote: "That's because you know it's rain. " So again we have god of the gaps who will eventually disappear as science advances, not a very sacred position to be a gap filler.
Earthquakes, god's wrath.
cs wrote: "What was religions answer, as to what caused earthquakes?"Do you dispute the statement? Have you an example of when science and religion clashed and it turned out religion was right all along?
Hmmmm.....
I'm not sure that I want to involve myself in this discussion at this moment in time. But, ....
Shaun, you have a point. You surely do. When it comes to scientific explanations for various things, you're correct. Just to be very, very clear, Shaun, I am saying you're correct. I'm hesitant to involve myself in this particular discussion, because ....
a) I don't want anyone to think I believe our planet is flat.
b) This not something that ... needs to be debated. Obviously, science has been right, over and over again, about the things you've stated.
But, ....
Believers might say we're missing the forest for the trees.
"With a track record like that, religion seems a poor horse to back in any race."
Well, when it comes to explaining the workings of the planet, plate tectonics, for example, you're right. But, for many believers, belief and faith are about more than this.
For me, God isn't about filling in gaps. When I was little and found myself believing in something, something more, and as I grew and developed faith in God, I didn't do so because science couldn't answer all of life's questions. When I had questions about scientific things and couldn't find an answer, I didn't think ... it must be God and that's why I believe. God can fill the gaps until science has the answers. No. That's not what I thought.
Now, people can argue with me regarding whether or not I should believe in God and have faith in God all the livelong day. But, I'll tell you this, for sure and for certain, my beliefs didn't come about due to science not filling in the gaps for me.
In addition, if we asked believers why they believe ... what belief in a higher power does for them ... what having faith has done in their lives, many will have very real answers. Some might say it's given them comfort and a sense of meaning. Others might say they've been involved in a 12 Step program that helped to save their jobs, their health, their families and their lives.
(And, yes, atheists have, when people have made these comments on this thread said, .... But, but, but ... Couldn't you get comfort from other sources ... Couldn't you get these things in other ways .... Probably. I'm sure some could and have and will. But, I also know that belief and faith have led to good things for a lot of people. A lot of believers have gotten comfort, etc... from a belief in God. One does not, in my mind, negate the other.)
So, for me, to focus on God as a default or to focus on the fact that religion has been wrong about things like the sun revolving around the earth is focusing on a tree. It's a tangent that, in no way, delves into the big picture of why so many believe and whether or not belief is a worthy "horse" to back.
I'm not sure that I want to involve myself in this discussion at this moment in time. But, ....
Shaun, you have a point. You surely do. When it comes to scientific explanations for various things, you're correct. Just to be very, very clear, Shaun, I am saying you're correct. I'm hesitant to involve myself in this particular discussion, because ....
a) I don't want anyone to think I believe our planet is flat.
b) This not something that ... needs to be debated. Obviously, science has been right, over and over again, about the things you've stated.
But, ....
Believers might say we're missing the forest for the trees.
"With a track record like that, religion seems a poor horse to back in any race."
Well, when it comes to explaining the workings of the planet, plate tectonics, for example, you're right. But, for many believers, belief and faith are about more than this.
For me, God isn't about filling in gaps. When I was little and found myself believing in something, something more, and as I grew and developed faith in God, I didn't do so because science couldn't answer all of life's questions. When I had questions about scientific things and couldn't find an answer, I didn't think ... it must be God and that's why I believe. God can fill the gaps until science has the answers. No. That's not what I thought.
Now, people can argue with me regarding whether or not I should believe in God and have faith in God all the livelong day. But, I'll tell you this, for sure and for certain, my beliefs didn't come about due to science not filling in the gaps for me.
In addition, if we asked believers why they believe ... what belief in a higher power does for them ... what having faith has done in their lives, many will have very real answers. Some might say it's given them comfort and a sense of meaning. Others might say they've been involved in a 12 Step program that helped to save their jobs, their health, their families and their lives.
(And, yes, atheists have, when people have made these comments on this thread said, .... But, but, but ... Couldn't you get comfort from other sources ... Couldn't you get these things in other ways .... Probably. I'm sure some could and have and will. But, I also know that belief and faith have led to good things for a lot of people. A lot of believers have gotten comfort, etc... from a belief in God. One does not, in my mind, negate the other.)
So, for me, to focus on God as a default or to focus on the fact that religion has been wrong about things like the sun revolving around the earth is focusing on a tree. It's a tangent that, in no way, delves into the big picture of why so many believe and whether or not belief is a worthy "horse" to back.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
The Devil's Collection: A Cynic's Dictionary (other topics)
Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (other topics)
God Hates You, Hate Him Back: Making Sense of the Bible (other topics)
The New Money System: When Your Money Fails (other topics)
More...
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Stephen King (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
More...
Books mentioned in this topic
Vector Calculus (other topics)The Devil's Collection: A Cynic's Dictionary (other topics)
Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (other topics)
God Hates You, Hate Him Back: Making Sense of the Bible (other topics)
The New Money System: When Your Money Fails (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Ray Kurzweil (other topics)Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Stephen King (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
More...
"
Yes it is right it's not a statagy, it's how it works, you can't shift the burden of proof.
Think of a court of law (the most prominent debate system)in a America the burden of proof falls on the prosecution making the claim ie: you're guilty/there is a god. The defence rebuts the claim ie:I'm not guilty/I reject the notion of god. The onus on the prosecution is to then prove the guilt of the defendant and the job of the defence is to present evidence that rebuts their case.
* edited to correct the pre coffee mistake pointed out by Hazel in #2466 thanks Hazel