IMO, it’s not the same context. The example you used has a central theme within the different perspectives, something tangible at the core, you know, touchy, feelly.
Religion Vs God
- Thread starter NMSquirrel
- Start date
IMO, it’s not the same context. The example you used has a central theme within the different perspectives, something tangible at the core, you know, touchy, feelly.
NM,
I am asking if there was information that falsified your belief and verified another belief, would you continue with yours.
So, it's not that god is proven to not exist, because nobody can prove something does not exist only that it does exist.
If the information points away from the evidence of god and in another direction, would your desire to have god in the world override the evidence against one.
I am willing to look at evidence that contradicts my position. Which is by the way that we evolved over millions of years here on earth and that specific development had no help from god. However, that does not mean that god or a god does not exist, but there is also no evidence for one. So whether I wanted to believe or not is mute because there is no reason for me to.
Sure, I would have no problem believing in a god with proof that would justifiy such a position.
Just like aliens, bigfoot and everything else that has yet to be proven to exists.
I am asking if there was information that falsified your belief and verified another belief, would you continue with yours.
So, it's not that god is proven to not exist, because nobody can prove something does not exist only that it does exist.
If the information points away from the evidence of god and in another direction, would your desire to have god in the world override the evidence against one.
I am willing to look at evidence that contradicts my position. Which is by the way that we evolved over millions of years here on earth and that specific development had no help from god. However, that does not mean that god or a god does not exist, but there is also no evidence for one. So whether I wanted to believe or not is mute because there is no reason for me to.
Sure, I would have no problem believing in a god with proof that would justifiy such a position.
Just like aliens, bigfoot and everything else that has yet to be proven to exists.
I have introduced absolute truth already (Machinery Handbook). You have yet to introduce anything matching the quality of the facts.
sure
whenever you want to apply yourself, drop me a line.
(BTW , kind of difficult to put a spin of a machinery text book as the absolute truth, even if you are one of those super rational guys who don't even put up a tree during christmas)
sure
whenever you want to apply yourself, drop me a line.
(BTW , kind of difficult to put a spin of a machinery text book as the absolute truth, even if you are one of those super rational guys who don't even put up a tree during christmas)
I have made it a practice to filter out nonsense, I like the purity of thought.
well if you like what you know and you know what you like, you've certainly knitted yourself a snug cocoon there
:shrug:
Actually, I think much of the theist/atheist debate (and the problems that come with it) may be a predictable consequence of there being a debate in the first place, of people engaging in discussion and debate at all.
Namely, what tends to happen in a debate is that the presented positions of each of the parties tend to get simplified/generalized/sharpened or otherwise shaped in order to form an opposition to eachother, so that there can be a debate at all.
This is a general phenomenon that can be observed in many kinds of debates.
We could also question the standard Western notions of how to go about discussion and debate - such as who bears the onus of proof, what are the fallacious ways of arguing and so on.
The standards of how to engage in discussion and debate are not the same all over the world and throughout time.
So we need to ask why we prefer one set of standards of others.
It all depends on what your standards for correctness, validity and justification are.
thats just it..there is no information that would falsify my belief or verify another belief..
even with no proof, god(even if you prefer the term the 'idea' of god) has contributed to many advances and attitudes of the human condition
this is your own choice..you are allowed to choose this..
but as far as 'no reason' to..this does not nescesarily require proof to have a reason to believe..and wouldn't it stand to reason that your reason for believing, would be yours and not someone elses? regardless of proof,
try explaining your reasons to someone else,if they don't agree with you is that reason enough to call you delusional?(im not calling you delusional..just thats the current buzzkill word..)
now it seems you are not only asking for proof but justifiability..leads me to believe proof is not enough for an athiest,even if there were proof they would find another reason not to believe.
that does not mean you cannot believe in them..
that doesn't mean you should be commited because you do..yes i know there are extreme personalities that justify such a thing, but that should not apply to the rest of the believers..
its like saying all blacks are bad because some commit crimes..
How about everything that has been proven by the scientific method and not falsified to date. It's not just my standards. Those that choose to live outside of that arena chose to live in a dreamworld, there is no way to reason with them.
However, many many theists do understand it, live in it and still choose to believe in god. Like the Vatican's astronomer, who said anyone who believes the bible is the literal word of god is a fool. Or any other religious text for that matter.
Why do you think these standards are the best ones to live by?
NM,
That depends. Do you believe the god is the god of the bible, or the koran etc. If so, then I definitely do.
The idea of god and how the idea has affected humanity, yes. But that is different that saying god put us here.
Right, someone could have their reasons, their justification. The question becomes what is it that one feels justifies this belief ?
For example, someone could claim they had a vision or something like that. To them it is very real, to me, I don't know if they are lying, hallucinated or really did experience something real. I guess if was a hallucination it would be.
Let me re-prhase it. The proof would be the justification. For example if god came down during a hurricane and in front of me, moved the hurricane back with his hand and it disappeared and was calm. I would be pretty dense not to believe in what I just saw.
Agreed on all points.
That depends. Do you believe the god is the god of the bible, or the koran etc. If so, then I definitely do.
The idea of god and how the idea has affected humanity, yes. But that is different that saying god put us here.
Right, someone could have their reasons, their justification. The question becomes what is it that one feels justifies this belief ?
For example, someone could claim they had a vision or something like that. To them it is very real, to me, I don't know if they are lying, hallucinated or really did experience something real. I guess if was a hallucination it would be.
Let me re-prhase it. The proof would be the justification. For example if god came down during a hurricane and in front of me, moved the hurricane back with his hand and it disappeared and was calm. I would be pretty dense not to believe in what I just saw.
Agreed on all points.
Because they are repeatable and testable. They are reality.
They are based on the natural world, not is some other dreamworld we would like to know, but in the world we do know.
It would be silly to bring into question at this point, how do we know whats real ?, so please don't, because I suspect that is where you are going. It is a separate issue to the one we are discussing.
If you don't think so. Then don't take your car or bus to work, don't walk on the street, don't move because you might fall of a cliff etc etc etc.
We do have a tangible world to study and the best way to do this is via the scientific method, period.
actually...i have posted this elswhere..i believe that god is god is god..
i think it is the same god in all religions,it is the religions who make him out to be different..
ah..but if no one else saw it..how would you prove that happened?
for that matter even if a bunch of ppl saw it and no-one recorded it..still same boat..
NM,
Understood, but the idea of god or what god is, is spelled out by these religions. They can fight with each other all they want. But if you don't choose a religion and still believe in god, then you have created your own god. Fine, so maybe you have a philosophy about your god. In which case I would be interested to hear about.
Religions have created this and it is pretty clear cut in their texts. So if you don't believe in one of the worlds religions version of god and all that is spelled out in their texts, then what kind of god or whose god are you believing in.
This is where the scrutiny comes in. If you believe in say the god of the bible. Have you then looked at what is falsifying the bible for example.
Doesn't matter, as you said and I agree, we can know something and not be able to prove it to others. In that case, I would know but sadly have no evidence for others.
It would be similar if I saw a bigfoot. I would keep my mouth shut until I could find the sucker again and shoot him. You know for evidence LOL, oh and the money. Best to use a tranquilizer, he would be worth more alive then dead.
Understood, but the idea of god or what god is, is spelled out by these religions. They can fight with each other all they want. But if you don't choose a religion and still believe in god, then you have created your own god. Fine, so maybe you have a philosophy about your god. In which case I would be interested to hear about.
Religions have created this and it is pretty clear cut in their texts. So if you don't believe in one of the worlds religions version of god and all that is spelled out in their texts, then what kind of god or whose god are you believing in.
This is where the scrutiny comes in. If you believe in say the god of the bible. Have you then looked at what is falsifying the bible for example.
Doesn't matter, as you said and I agree, we can know something and not be able to prove it to others. In that case, I would know but sadly have no evidence for others.
It would be similar if I saw a bigfoot. I would keep my mouth shut until I could find the sucker again and shoot him. You know for evidence LOL, oh and the money. Best to use a tranquilizer, he would be worth more alive then dead.
first off..i have not studied the differences in what other religions claim god is..
so most of my thoughts are purely speculative and mostly based on the idea of 'can't we all just get along',and the idea of if it causes so many problems then it must not be from god..
i don't think i would agree with the idea of myself 'creating' my own god.
when i have looked for a church to be a part of i have noticed that there is a common denominator between all churches..that is where i look for god..in that commonality..not from the differences,
as i have said elsewhere..i believe the bible is a guide book...not to be taken so literally..you have argued about proof, and with such have discovered that there can be no proof..these authors of the bible are under that same scrutiny..they are just explaining,sharing teaching about god the best way they know how..once upon a time it pry was better to 'do as your told' to learn about god..this is not the case today..today we have to get our information about god and who he is from many different sources to be able to piece together who he is and what he is for..again look for the common denominator, it is there where you will begin to understand what/who god is..
it is my opinion as i stated above..the bible was written by man, yes i would agree it was inspired by god, but to claim it was written by god himself defeats what it is trying to teach..the falsibility of the bible as you say is inherant because it was written by man..and as such man try's to add his own 'flavor' to the story..this is not speaking to the points in the bible where one section teaches us how to crawl and the next teaches us how to walk..(metaphorically speaking as this can be construed as contradictory)
i hope i am not trying to make too many points at once..this also can lend to confusion..and i also am/are subjective to my own humanity..(i can screw up just as easily as anyone else..)
they found bigfoot..turns out it was a tall hermit who needed a bath and a shave....lol..
oops..tried to spam that one..
NM,
This is where the lack of scrutiny of ones own belief comes in and my challenge to the believers of the world.
You can't pass the blame for the monsterous errors in the religious texts on man. If it was god inspired, the information would be accurate or at least somewhat accurate. Of course man could have misinterpreted some things but the main claim for god in the bible is that god created the earth and heavans and everything else and spells it out very clearly.
Of course it's wrong. So the questions that should be asked are:
How could god be so wrong ? If he is not wrong, then you are accepting the creationist version of events.
But if you don't accept that, then you are saying god was wrong which can't be.
So which is it ?
If you follow my line of questioning and continue it and scrutinize the claims then what starts to be clear is that the book is a fabrication, a story.
What makes you believe that they could get so much wrong after supposedly being inspired by god and not get the idea about god wrong ?
IOW, maybe they just made up god along with the rest of it.
So I understand the belief in god outside of any religion. Because it is clear that no religion has it right.
However, the question remains then, what god are you really believing in ?
Answer, a god that nobody has any information on because there is no way to gather information and all infomation on god is essentially bunk. It may be there but we can never know it. Maybe after death, who knows.
This is where the lack of scrutiny of ones own belief comes in and my challenge to the believers of the world.
You can't pass the blame for the monsterous errors in the religious texts on man. If it was god inspired, the information would be accurate or at least somewhat accurate. Of course man could have misinterpreted some things but the main claim for god in the bible is that god created the earth and heavans and everything else and spells it out very clearly.
Of course it's wrong. So the questions that should be asked are:
How could god be so wrong ? If he is not wrong, then you are accepting the creationist version of events.
But if you don't accept that, then you are saying god was wrong which can't be.
So which is it ?
If you follow my line of questioning and continue it and scrutinize the claims then what starts to be clear is that the book is a fabrication, a story.
What makes you believe that they could get so much wrong after supposedly being inspired by god and not get the idea about god wrong ?
IOW, maybe they just made up god along with the rest of it.
So I understand the belief in god outside of any religion. Because it is clear that no religion has it right.
However, the question remains then, what god are you really believing in ?
Answer, a god that nobody has any information on because there is no way to gather information and all infomation on god is essentially bunk. It may be there but we can never know it. Maybe after death, who knows.
thank you for this earth i wasnt aware the numbers were that high very nice to see that people know the goverment is just fillin us with BS or "weather ballons"