Rationality versus religion

[Skeptical]

Jan

My standard of evidence is exactly the same as that which would be acceptable to a peer reviewed and reputable scientific journal. For this reason, your feeling that I am simply creating standards of evidence to suit myself, is simply wrong.

lightgigantic

Your ideas of 'evidence' for something unknowable breach those standards of scientific truth. If a deity existed, that met the criteria laid down by Christianity, then he/she/it would be eminently capable of providing all the evidence I, or any other non theist, would demand.

Why should I, and others like me, trained in scientific thought and the standards of scientific evidence, accept second rate non empirical, subjective and non repeatable evidence? Your simple assertions are definitely not sufficient reason.

 

[mugwump]

I come from a 'christian' background myself, and am questioning the reasoning behind the 'fact' that is taught us from infancy. I have no problem with people believing what they will-it is their life.

However, how can they 'prove' a deity to me? They can't. If I choose to believe in one, that is all it is--belief. I think many religions are threatened by the idea that they cannot scientifically prove the existence and rationality of their beliefs and so turn to anything that will prop it up and legitimize it...regardless of the logicality of it.

I say that any deity who requires it's followers to endlessly defend it is no god worth having.

I told you that there are none but temporary Truth-Seekers; that a permanent one is a human impossibility; that as soon as the Seeker finds what he is thoroughly convinced is the Truth, he seeks no further, but gives the rest of his days to hunting junk to patch it and caulk it and prop it with, and make it weather-proof and keep it from caving in on him.

Hence the Presbyterian remains a Presbyterian, the Mohammedan a Mohammedan, the Spiritualist a Spiritualist, the Democrat a Democrat, the Republican a Republican, the Monarchist a Monarchist; and if a humble, earnest, and sincere Seeker after Truth should find it in the proposition that the moon is made of green cheese nothing could ever budge him from that position; for he is nothing but an automatic machine, and must obey the laws of his construction.

Having found the Truth; perceiving that beyond question man has but one moving impulse--the contenting of his own spirit-- and is merely a machine and entitled to no personal merit for anything he does, it is not humanly possible for me to seek further.The rest of my days will be spent in patching and painting and puttying and caulking my priceless possession and in looking the other way when an imploring argument or a damaging fact approaches.

~ The conversation between the Old Man & The Young Man--Mark Twain

(For those of you who may not be used to Mark Twain, I find the above to be an amusing perception of human nature, though I don't believe the case to be so utterly hopeless...as what he says is almost always tongue-in-cheek...)

 

[wynn]

My standard of evidence is exactly the same as that which would be acceptable to a peer reviewed and reputable scientific journal. For this reason, your feeling that I am simply creating standards of evidence to suit myself, is simply wrong.

For some reason, you are subscribing to those standards of evidence, and not to some others.
As such, you are making a choice, one to suit yourself.

If a deity existed, that met the criteria laid down by Christianity, then he/she/it would be eminently capable of providing all the evidence I, or any other non theist, would demand.

That does not apply, as one of the basic criteria in mainstream versions of Christianity is that one should not tempt God or demand evidence of His existence.

Why should I, and others like me, trained in scientific thought and the standards of scientific evidence, accept second rate non empirical, subjective and non repeatable evidence?

Your simple assertions are definitely not sufficient reason.

I agree with that last part.

 

[Skeptical]

To signal

"One should not tempt God."

Is this principle independent of, or a result of the need to avoid anything that might require proper evidence?

I do not believe I am making a specific choice in asking for scientifically acceptable evidence, except that I choose to do that which is rational.

 

[wynn]

"One should not tempt God."

Is this principle independent of, or a result of the need to avoid anything that might require proper evidence?

I don't know, but you were talking about a "deity that met the criteria laid down by Christianity".
So I am pointing out that one cannot actually put forward any kind of verification requests to God as understood by mainstream Christianity.
Such requests simply do not apply.

I do not believe I am making a specific choice in asking for scientifically acceptable evidence,

You are.

except that I choose to do that which is rational.

Note that this is just one very particular kind of "rationality", among many.

 

[Skeptical]

I recall there was an incident in the Old Testament in which a 'holy' person tested God. A mundane test, to be sure, relating to whether a fleece got wet or stayed dry, but still a test. So the precedent is there.

 

[NMSquirrel]

Squirrel

We are all different. You and Lori appear to be happy to accept a form of evidence that I and other more critical thinking people are not. I cannot persuade you to reject unscientific evidence, and go for that which is more rigorous.

do you disagree with my statement about faith needs no evidence?
what is your take on faith?
how does science define faith?
(i am not asking for a religious context)
do you understand what i mean by faith is needed for relationships?

in ability to seek out that which is true.

i have always looked for truth..some truths cannot be had by experimenting..IE how do you KNOW your spouse loves you? (trying to tie this question with above comment about faith and relationships)

And incidentally, I have never suggested Lori takes drugs. Just that the experience she describes can be induced by drugs. This suggests to me that the experience is internal and false, just as drug induced experiences are false.

yea i know you haven't suggested lori takes drugs..

just because it can be induced by drugs does not mean it is a false experience..(internal is another story)
i believe her when she says that stuff..it doesn't mean i have shared such experiences..doesn't mean i think everyone should have those experiences..it doesn't even mean i agree with her..it just means i believe she believes it.

if i knew her in real life and she shared that with me, i would think she was a little nuts..(i would pry give her a little lip about it,but i would find a unique way to tease her) i would not spend the rest of my time trying to convince her that she is nuts..she has a RIGHT to believe what she believes,it does not matter whether i agree with her or not..it is NOT my life that is subjective to her experiences..

makes me wonder how her husband teases her about it..

 

[NMSquirrel]

Jan

My standard of evidence is exactly the same as that which would be acceptable to a peer reviewed and reputable scientific journal. For this reason, your feeling that I am simply creating standards of evidence to suit myself, is simply wrong.

ok that is a good point..peers are those who are like minded..a peer reviewed study on astrophysics would not mean anything coming from a physician..
so using that analogy..most athiest are asking to be included in the peer review process concerning god..(they make judgments outside of their experiences..) so of course it is a hard thing to understand..

lightgigantic

Your ideas of 'evidence' for something unknowable breach those standards of scientific truth. If a deity existed, that met the criteria laid down by Christianity, then he/she/it would be eminently capable of providing all the evidence I, or any other non theist, would demand.

Why should I, and others like me, trained in scientific thought and the standards of scientific evidence, accept second rate non empirical, subjective and non repeatable evidence? Your simple assertions are definitely not sufficient reason.

what is faith?
(see my other post)

 

[Skeptical]

Squirrel

I do not have a good feeling for faith.

Scepticism and faith are opposites. The opposite of sceptical is gullible. That should give you a pretty good idea of how I feel about it.

Faith is the quality that allows people to become suckers, and get ripped off by con artists. Having that much faith in other people, who happen to be charismatic, is a recipe for exploitation. I do not think that religious faith differs in any practical way from the faith people have in smooth talking used car salesmen or swindlers.

For that matter, the personal qualities that allow someone to become a smooth talking, charismatic swindler are pretty much exactly the same qualities that permit someone to become a successful evangelist. Joseph Smith, who founded the Mormons, is a great example. He was actually jailed for swindling people out of their money. Then he founded a religion. After that, and until he was lynched, he lived a sweet life, with heaps of money coming in, and lots of sex from his female followers. Pity about that lynching....

 

[NMSquirrel]

Squirrel

I do not have a good feeling for faith.

are you in a relationship?
do you plan on being in one?
you cannot have a relationship without faith..

you cannot reasonably expect your other half to PROVE their love to you..you take it on faith that they do love you..there is NO evidence (using the term as an atheist would) that they could give to prove that they love you..all you have is their word..
to dismiss faith just because it is usually associated with a religious connotation is very irresponsible..
(more later..stargate is on..)

 

[Skeptical]

Squirrel

I am married, and I love my wife very much.
I am not sure that her love for me is purely a matter of faith. I see the evidence every day. It is not just her words, but her actions. After being married for more than 20 years, I know her well, and she would find it very difficult to fool me.

So no. I do not need faith for this. The evidence is clear cut and strong, and very credible.

Nor do I ask for proof, in this or in religious matters. Just strong, credible evidence. In science we know that nothing is ever 100% proven.

 

[NMSquirrel]

Squirrel

I am married, and I love my wife very much.
I am not sure that her love for me is purely a matter of faith. I see the evidence every day. It is not just her words, but her actions. After being married for more than 20 years, I know her well, and she would find it very difficult to fool me.

So no. I do not need faith for this. The evidence is clear cut and strong, and very credible.

Nor do I ask for proof, in this or in religious matters. Just strong, credible evidence. In science we know that nothing is ever 100% proven.

but this evidence is very subjective, correct?
if you were to explain this evidence to someone else, could it not be argued with?
a believers relationship with god is akin to your love for your wife..yes you have been with her a long time and have come to believe that she loves you..
but was it as sure in the begining?

you say there is no need for faith in your relationship..(ask her about this)
i say you have had it for so long that you no longer recognize it as faith and have concluded it as fact..just as a believer concludes that there is a god as fact.

 

[Skeptical]

Squirrel

Of course it was not as sure in the beginning. When my wife and I met, and came to love each other, there was no way I could know with any high probability of her feelings. I accepted the uncertainty, and we moved forward.

Today things are different, since I now know her mind and emotions in detail. I can predict how she will respond in most situations. This is definitely not the same as the relationship between a christian and his/her imaginary friend. My wife is clearly and obviously far from imaginary. My success in prediction is also far from imaginary. My acceptance that she most probably does love me is not based on faith.

I have to also say that faith is not the same as uncertainty. Nothing in life is certain. However, when something is very probable, we act as if it were correct. How else can you act? Religious faith takes something that is extremely improbable and accepts it as true.

 

[NMSquirrel]

Squirrel

Of course it was not as sure in the beginning. When my wife and I met, and came to love each other, there was no way I could know with any high probability of her feelings. I accepted the uncertainty, and we moved forward.

most new believers have that same uncertainty,

Today things are different, since I now know her mind and emotions in detail. I can predict how she will respond in most situations. This is definitely not the same as the relationship between a christian and his/her imaginary friend. My wife is clearly and obviously far from imaginary. My success in prediction is also far from imaginary. My acceptance that she most probably does love me is not based on faith.

actuall i can predict gods reaction to certain choices i make..i know god has a sense of humor..the easiest to communicate is 'What else can go wrong?'. or when you just wash you car..it rains..etc...true enough its not as reliable as predicting your wife, but it is still there non the less..

I have to also say that faith is not the same as uncertainty. Nothing in life is certain. However, when something is very probable, we act as if it were correct. How else can you act? Religious faith takes something that is extremely improbable and accepts it as true.

you use the term improbable outside a peer point of view..
IOW ask any believer and they would argue with you..

now i did notice you had seperated faith and religious faith..
they are actually one and the same, it is just that the word faith is used more extensively in religious contexts..
the word/concept of 'faith' is not a bad thing to be avoided just because religion tends to try and own it..

you have faith every time you believe someone when they tell you they will be there at X o'clock..
or when your boss says he will give you a raise..or many other instances..

how about this..
whenever you hear someone talk about god substitute the word 'love' for the word 'god' see if that makes it easier to understand..

 

[Adstar]

who are you speaking for? christians or people of all faiths?

Myself primarily.

and atheists don't try to break anyone's faith.

Yes they do. Some work very hard to break people's faith.

atheists argue over poor and illogical thinking in relation to it.

Most atheists protest over the expressed will of God. They are against God not because of His existence or otherwise but because they disagree with His teachings.

there is nothing to break if one believes. it's a choice. atheists don't go to christian forums to try and persuade them otherwise or at least most don't, just like they don't go to church to try and persuade either.

Of course atheists go to Christian forums to persuade them otherwise. There are many hard core atheist, anti-christians who make it their life’s work to destroy the faith of Christians.

people have freedom of religion but that doesn't mean religionists have some right to demand it's a fact.

What’s this demand business? I tell people what i believe. I do not demand anyone believes.

even your post is hinting that it is.

Quote where i demanded anything.

why theists constantly want to butt it up against atheists seems to betray how strong your beliefs really are as well as their beliefs are intolerant since you have freedom of religion and your organizations.

If Theists had no tolerance for atheists then a lot of atheists would be killed. Christians are given an order by Jesus to go out and share the gospel. it is not a "butt it up" kind of situation at all.

it's christians who have a problem with atheists not believing or confirming that it's a truth instead of a personal belief.

Well yeah it is a problem for us. People who reject the atonement of the Messiah Jesus will have eternity in the Lake of Fire. So that is a real problem for many Christians and why we are so motivated to give the Message and persist with atheists.

As for atheists not confirming my belief in God, the bible tells me what someone who does not believe in God is.

Psalm 14
1 The fool has said in his heart,“There is no God.”

And i believe it.

So how can may faith be undermined by a person who says “There is no God.”


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

 

[Adstar]

Your unbreakable faith is testimony to your mode of thinking and the way you were raised, it can arise just as easily in a universe without a god as it could in a universe that included one. So, by your definition, divinity is still not measurable or testable.

It is measurable and testable. But it is not provable using the scientific method.

God Does Not Want to be Proven by the Scientific Method. He wants the Message He gives to Draw those who are willing to be Moved by It.



All Praise The Ancient Of Days

 

[birch]

Well yeah it is a problem for us. People who reject the atonement of the Messiah Jesus will have eternity in the Lake of Fire. So that is a real problem for many Christians and why we are so motivated to give the Message and persist with atheists.

As for atheists not confirming my belief in God, the bible tells me what someone who does not believe in God is.

Psalm 14
1 The fool has said in his heart,“There is no God.”

And i believe it.

So how can may faith be undermined by a person who says “There is no God.”

you don't understand. you are speaking for the whole concept of god but your religion is christianity. this is what commonly happens as they usually think that they have some monopoly on god. you are really asking them to see the universe or the meaning of existence or question in the same way you do. just because someone identifies as atheist, doesn't mean they are not spiritually aware or spiritual in some way whether they realize it or not.

there are people who do not think of the concept of god or the 'meaning of it all' in the same way.

the scripture you are describing is denoting even betrayal of one's own heart or debasing, suffocating or denying one's spirit/soul (identity), emotions and senses whether concrete or subtle/nuanced. again, just because one identifies as an atheist or agnostic, doesn't mean they do this.

furthermore, that's a general scripture but there are people of many religions that differ from yours that believe in the concept of a deity or some higher power or various forces. so it's not just that the issue is whether atheists believe or don't believe, but whether they believe in a specific religious "version" of this issue.

 

[Adstar]

on the same token, why is it incumbent on atheists to entertain or respect christians or christian beliefs so much??

wtf is ya'll's problemo?

LOL.... I have been on this forum for years and i must say no respect has ever been shown to Christians or Christianity by athiests on this forum. Nothing but insults, mockery, denegration and persecution. And you follow the same mode. So Where is this supposed entertaining or respect for Christians or Christianity you talk about?

Seems you have the problem in not seeing what happens in here everyday.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

 

[Skeptical]

I am constantly baffled by religico's views. Adstar is a prime example. Absolutely no conception of the need for credible evidence.

Faith is a quality that, in everyday life, leads to people being screwed by other people. If you have faith in the used car salesman, guess what you buy. The early Mormons had faith, and Joseph Smith stole their wives. Having faith is another phrase meaning 'gullible'.

In religion, having faith means giving up your valuable time to carry out pointless vocal gymnastics in some church, and giving money to the parasites who work in that church. To me, before I sacrificed both time and money, I would need to be convinced by solid, credible evidence, that what I was giving time and money to was worthwhile.

I fail to understand why religicos seem to think that evidence which would not stand up in a court of law, or be accepted by a scientific journal, is OK. It is not OK. It is not rational to believe in something for which there is no solid evidence. If religious beliefs are correct, then the evidence must be there.

 

[Adstar]

you don't understand. you are speaking for the whole concept of god but your religion is christianity. this is what commonly happens as they usually think that they have some monopoly on god. you are really asking them to see the universe or the meaning of existence or question in the same way you do. just because someone identifies as atheist, doesn't mean they are not spiritually aware or spiritual in some way whether they realize it or not.

there are people who do not think of the concept of god or the 'meaning of it all' in the same way you do.

the scripture you are describing is denoting even betrayal of one's own heart or debasing, suffocating or denying one's spirit/soul. again, just because one identifies as an atheist or agnostic, doesn't mean they do this.

furthermore, that's a general scripture but there are people of many religions that differ from yours that believe in the concept of a deity or some higher power or various forces. so it's not just that the issue is whether atheists believe or don't believe, but whether they believe in a specific religious "version" of this issue.

So??? If someone has another idea and they are motivated to share it with then sweet. I will listen to their Spiritual views. And i in turn will share my views with them. THATS WHAT PEOPLE DO ON FORUMS.

So whats with all the attitude you vent out about Christians sharing their views in a "Religion" Section of a forum?

Like Christians are talking about Christianity inside the Religion section of the forum when's someone going to put a stop to this ......


All Praise The Ancient Of Days