Good one. You always cut to the heart of things.
Why the belief?
- Thread starter praty
- Start date
Good one. You always cut to the heart of things.
How touchy. Have you become an Oprah version of an atheist?
Good old SpiderGoat (well, not old) is like Old Faithful in not being blindly led by the blind into a blind of the imaginary wearing blinders.
The beer must taste pretty great on a hot day in India, as it will soon be hot here in the US, too.
As for Science's path, we'll have to put up Science Crossing signs so that the God believers and their dogmas don't get run over by the train of thought, reason, and evidence, but they will anyway, making a myth-take.
If others fling poo, one ought to fling poo too!
:itold:
Seriously. The lack of goodwill in SF discussions is taking a heavy toll on the quality of the exchanges.
That's one way of looking at it.
Although my view is that anyone who can't be bothered to lay out their reasoning doesn't deserve my (or anyone else's) reasoning.
Really?
On a discussion forum?
Yup. How is presenting a flat declaration, that goes against current knowledge/ thought, without explanation promoting discussion?
What's good for the goose...
You bet it does!
Not only religion is corrosive for science, science is corrosive for religion.
Yep, and a myth-take that will be on cost of humanity.
Okay, back to the topic. So far no evidence for Scripture defined afterlife has been provided for believing in it. Next logical step would be to question teachings of it to the masses. Should they be told it's a mystery/unknowable fact or preached with conviction as superimposition of the belief of the particular religion?
Last edited:
They do believe it, and they want others to, but it can't be shown or proved and so that is taking unfair advantage of the young and/or the impressionable. It can't even be a hypothesis or a theory, but just a mere notion, and even that of just a wish.
(dwryddyr's PM thing was to Signal)
Exactly. How do you propose that we get rid of this, and breed more skepticism?
Just make sure that the environment gets more and more polluted and that more and more people lose their jobs.
That should make skepticism soar sky-high!
Just make sure that the environment gets more and more polluted and that more and more people lose their jobs.
That should make skepticism soar sky-high!
Funny!
I'm curious what you say about the post #171...
People generally believe in things for two kinds of reasons: 1. empirical, 2. moral.
When it comes to things like cooking, cleaning, cars, building houses or fixing rotten teeth, we go for empirically tested approaches.
But when it comes to things like free will, justice, goodness, we tend to believe things for moral reasons (even when they are directly opposed to empirical findings).
For example, people generally believe we have free will. There is no conclusive empirical evidence that we in fact have free will, moreover, some studies suggest we do not have it. But we believe we have free will anyway.
It would be demoralizing to believe otherwise.
We shouldn't underestimate the importance of humans being moral beings.
given that faith is the initial prerequisite for any knowledge based claim, I guess the only way for you not to be insulted is to be labeled as ignorant.
Good points raised Signal. Still would you say preaching to children and the gullible 'your' way is inherently correct?
Sarkus,
You are?
OK, thought I saw a question mark.
Ok.
Why?
Ok.
I can understand that we have our own personal opinions, but why is ''God did it'' a valueless answer? And to whom exactly is it valueless?
Do you side with the many?
Or do you have your own opinion?
Ok.
I'm confused. :shrug:
Do scientists know what is God?
Or are they looking for something they call God?
As nice a guy as you probably are, we weren't talking about you personally.
But while we're here;
Why are you atheist?
If you say ''lack of evidence'', please explain what is actually lacking which would constitute evidence.
So you're (ag) atheist to ''no specific idea'' of God, and are happy to be (ag)atheist
to whatever ideas other bring to the table?
An explanation of why you think this, would be more of an intelligent move IMHO.
I don't know, it doesn't seem that my lifestyle is of the same quality as that of a self-realised soul, like Jesus, or, Mohammad, or any of the great personalities in scripture (and not), who by dint of their great intelligence advance themselves to such lofty heights.
I guess we have read up and develop our understanding.
How does one decide one has no evidence of God?
At what point in the investigation is this decision made?
jan.
You are?
OK, thought I saw a question mark.
Ok.
Why?
Ok.
I can understand that we have our own personal opinions, but why is ''God did it'' a valueless answer? And to whom exactly is it valueless?
Do you side with the many?
Or do you have your own opinion?
Ok.
I'm confused. :shrug:
Do scientists know what is God?
Or are they looking for something they call God?
As nice a guy as you probably are, we weren't talking about you personally.
But while we're here;
Why are you atheist?
If you say ''lack of evidence'', please explain what is actually lacking which would constitute evidence.
So you're (ag) atheist to ''no specific idea'' of God, and are happy to be (ag)atheist
to whatever ideas other bring to the table?
An explanation of why you think this, would be more of an intelligent move IMHO.
I don't know, it doesn't seem that my lifestyle is of the same quality as that of a self-realised soul, like Jesus, or, Mohammad, or any of the great personalities in scripture (and not), who by dint of their great intelligence advance themselves to such lofty heights.
I guess we have read up and develop our understanding.
How does one decide one has no evidence of God?
At what point in the investigation is this decision made?
jan.