A "world view" is a constant outlook someone has on life/reality/perspective. It is often in the form of a personal code or a rationalization of actions in a way that they believe is internally constant. It is central to how they view the world and is formed over the course of the person's life.
I agree that i view the world in my own way. I just do not want to be glued to my beliefs because my beliefs have and will change.
(This next part is more MY opinion of a world view)
A person is defined by their world view. In my experience, it's often in "tiers" were a fundamental assumption supports higher levels of the world view. If you want to change a tier of someone's world view, you need to look at the tiers that support it. In my experience, things like physical evidence in reality (something they 'see with their own eyes') and an aversion to appearing inconsistent are normally very close to the most fundamental tier of a person's world view.
I do hold physical evidence and science very high in my view of the world. I could be duped by bad or even faulty science. I hold on to the hope that the science community is going to eventually purge the bad science. For example i never believed that vaccines caused autism, but if enough false studies were published i would have. Then i would hope that some other expert would show the world that the vaccine link was false so i could change my mind. In in other words if global warming has been an elaborate exercise in bad or fraudulent science then they got me.
I really believe that if you understand the basic assumptions a person has, you can normally get most of what they think or feel because their world view is normally pretty logical and constant from the different starting points.
Understanding other people's world view is of utmost importance to me.
One of my most basic assumptions is that given enough time humans will discovery and understand everything. For me existence is divided into the stuff we do know and the stuff we have yet to learn.
I'm not quite sure what you mean here, so let me just make some general statements that could apply to lots of people:
Lots of atheists recoil at the idea of having atheism labeled a "philosophy."
It normally comes from the general sense that the rejection of something they feel is fundamentally ridiculous isn't a philosophy. "Would not believing in an invisible sky monster be a 'philosophy?'"<- that kinda thing. And, I think I would agree with them on that point.
Atheism is not a philosophy it is the start of finding a philosophy
However, anyone who is going around arguing about it, probably does have some kind of philosophy on it, IMO. This is because at that point most have gone beyond a simple rejection, they have started to rationalize that rejection.
Then it becomes a world view (or part of their existing world view).
Of course you have to go somewhere after you reject god. Atheism is the rejection. What you believe in the absence of god is the world view. A lot of the time that world view will be science and physical world based because after you reject god that is all we have left.
It's your claim. You tell me what you think you can disprove. And I'd like to know what evidence you have that you could have made a better existence.
o.k. First up the god of non-existence further referred to as god.
Existence is the collection of all things that exists
Non-Existence is the collection of all things that does not and will never exist
God is a being outside of existence.
God is not in existence therefore god is in non-existence.
If god is in non-existence then god must not exist.
That was easy. If you want in other more relevant gods disproved you will have to provide me with one.
It just irks me a bit whenever people face absolute uncertainly and still veer towards a certain answer, simply because the other possibility doesn't make sense to them.
I am o.k. with saying i do not know something, but i am completely against the concept that in the face of no evidence then all possibilities are equal.
Example a little girl gets cancer. All doctors say she will die in one week. Two weeks latter she is alive and has no cancer. There is absolutely no evidence for why this occurred.
I would say I do not know why this happened. But i will not let people then claim that
god did it = meditation did it = mother nature did it = a rational and scientifically understandable process did it = any random thing i can make up.
We know that one of those works. We have past experience. The other three are not equal possibilities.
I agree that i view the world in my own way. I just do not want to be glued to my beliefs because my beliefs have and will change.
Well, you're world view would change as your grow as a person. However, people--in my experience--are comforted by a perception that their "self" is more or less constant (even if it's not strictly true).
I do hold physical evidence and science very high in my view of the world. I could be duped by bad or even faulty science. I hold on to the hope that the science community is going to eventually purge the bad science. For example i never believed that vaccines caused autism, but if enough false studies were published i would have. Then i would hope that some other expert would show the world that the vaccine link was false so i could change my mind. In in other words if global warming has been an elaborate exercise in bad or fraudulent science then they got me.
Well, now your talking about "trust." As in, who/what the person trust to give them accurate information about the world. That's normally the next tier up from what I was talking about.
One of my most basic assumptions is that given enough time humans will discovery and understand everything. For me existence is divided into the stuff we do know and the stuff we have yet to learn.
Of course you have to go somewhere after you reject god. Atheism is the rejection. What you believe in the absence of god is the world view. A lot of the time that world view will be science and physical world based because after you reject god that is all we have left.
Alright, so atheists all do have have a world view; it's just not "Pure Atheism."
o.k. First up the god of non-existence further referred to as god.
Existence is the collection of all things that exists
Non-Existence is the collection of all things that does not and will never exist
God is a being outside of existence.
God is not in existence therefore god is in non-existence.
If god is in non-existence then god must not exist.
There are so many gaps in this 'proof', it's hard to know where to start.
Definition of existence. Unicorns. Are they in the 'exist' column, or the 'non-exist' column? If they don't exist, how can you know what I mean when I say 'unicorns'?
Definition of existence (2). Dinosaurs. Are they in the 'exist' column, or the 'non-exist' column? What makes them different from unicorns?
Completeness. You've defined 'Existence' and 'Non-Existence', but you haven't defined those as the only two options. There's no evidence that "outside of existence" is congruent with "non-existence".
Argument by redefinition. The 'existence' referred to in the commonly-sited phrase "God resides outside of existence" isn't the same term that you defined in your proof.
OR
Logical Impossibility. (Take your pick.) By your definition of "existence", God cannot be a "being", because a "being" is defined as "the quality or state of having existence." Thus, your postulate "God is a being outside of existence" is equivalent to calling God "a circle with three corners and three sides."
So...yeah. Care to try again?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I wasn't sleeping. I'm a beta-tester for Google Eyelids...I was just taking the opportunity to update my Facebook page." -- Morgan Freeman, accused of napping during a TV interview.
I am o.k. with saying i do not know something, but i am completely against the concept that in the face of no evidence then all possibilities are equal.
Why?
In a situation in which there is absolutely no proof whatsoever to even begin to make an inclination for judgment one way or another, why does what you believe in trump others?
We know that one of those works. We have past experience. The other three are not equal possibilities.
Why?
I pursuit this dogmatically because this is close-minded thinking. Making even a semblance of a judgment, or thinking in one manner when there is absolutely no evidence to support said thought, is a mark of being close-minded.
See, it is rather irrelevant whether something is highly unlikely. It should still be kept in your mind so that you are willing to qualify the situation against it. What I worry about are people writing things off out of hand, simply because it is unlikely to exist/w.e.
So what if we have no evidence that miracles exist? That doesn't preclude the existence of miracles. It merely means that we have no evidence to support the existence of miracles, and as such you don't need to believe in it or give it credible thought.
But you should always keep the possibility open, and equal in your mind so that you are willing to accept evidence when, if ever, they appear.
Doing anything else is doing exactly what you all dislike about religious folks. And it irks me.
Another reason why this is important- Look up every great scientific discovery of the past century. You'll quickly notice people sticking dogmatically to their pet theory even in the face of overwhelming, or at the very least convincing, evidence. People have a tendency to stick to their guns, and that is bad. If you think religious folks are the most close-minded people around, then you need to read more. Close-mindedness comes largely from conviction and personal connection. Most researchers have great conviction in their work, and whenever someone threatens it they tend to respond... violently.
o.k. First up the god of non-existence further referred to as god.
Existence is the collection of all things that exists
Non-Existence is the collection of all things that does not and will never exist
God is a being outside of existence.
God is not in existence therefore god is in non-existence.
If god is in non-existence then god must not exist.
There are so many gaps in this 'proof', it's hard to know where to start.
Definition of existence. Unicorns. Are they in the 'exist' column, or the 'non-exist' column? If they don't exist, how can you know what I mean when I say 'unicorns'?
Definition of existence (2). Dinosaurs. Are they in the 'exist' column, or the 'non-exist' column? What makes them different from unicorns?
Completeness. You've defined 'Existence' and 'Non-Existence', but you haven't defined those as the only two options. There's no evidence that "outside of existence" is congruent with "non-existence".
Argument by redefinition. The 'existence' referred to in the commonly-sited phrase "God resides outside of existence" isn't the same term that you defined in your proof.
OR
Logical Impossibility. (Take your pick.) By your definition of "existence", God cannot be a "being", because a "being" is defined as "the quality or state of having existence." Thus, your postulate "God is a being outside of existence" is equivalent to calling God "a circle with three corners and three sides."
So...yeah. Care to try again?
You are correct I should not have tried to type up a pithy retort in less than a minute. To be clear I never cared about disproving a god that no one believes in I just wanted to disprove your personal god. I asked you to tell me the god you wanted me to disprove and you said I could choose. Now that you have posted a few more times on this board you have claimed to be a Mormon. So now I now what I will try to disprove. The god of the bible. I will use the biblical accounts of god as evidence in my argument.
Be warned that I want to do this myself. I am not going to find some famous logical proof and just copy and paste it. You wanted to know why I know god does not exist. So I will argue the point myself. I do not know how to construct a logically sound proof it turns out. So I would like to use this as a learning opportunity if you are willing to help me learn.
Definitions
Omnipotent: The ability to achieve any achievable goal in every possible way and in more than one way.
Omnipotent: The ability to know everything that can be known including future actions.
Omnibenevolent: The self imposed requirement with the explicit purpose of causing the least amount of suffering.
Do you accept or want to change these definitions?
If you agree to the definitions then I will proceed.
We have past experience that tells us that unknown things will be learned through logic and observation. Thus we know that science has at least a chance to figure out the problem. We have nothing to indicate prayer works.
In a situation in which there is absolutely no proof whatsoever to even begin to make an inclination for judgment one way or another, why does what you believe in trump others?
It is not that my belief trumps others. It is that we have used science to solve the unknown so there is no reason to believe that science will not solve more unknowns. Where as prayer has done nothing before so we have no reason to believe it will start working now.
I pursuit this dogmatically because this is close-minded thinking. Making even a semblance of a judgment, or thinking in one manner when there is absolutely no evidence to support said thought, is a mark of being close-minded.
We have past experience as evidence that science works. As much as you want this situation to have no evidence it does not. We do have evidence that science can discover how the unknown works. That matters no matter if you think it doesn't matter.
It should still be kept in your mind so that you are willing to qualify the situation against it. What I worry about are people writing things off out of hand, simply because it is unlikely to exist/w.e.
This is ridiculous. You must entertain all possibilities before you can try to solve a problem. Has thinking about the matting patters of HJEOEDFLF( on planet GJROEJFOPF_ED every helped to solve a problem. Why dont people think about the matting patters of HJEOEDFLF( on planet GJROEJFOPF_ED?
Maybe it is because that is not how science works at all. We do not have to entertain all possibilities in order to understand the unknown.
So what if we have no evidence that miracles exist? That doesn't preclude the existence of miracles. It merely means that we have no evidence to support the existence of miracles, and as such you don't need to believe in it or give it credible thought.
Exactly we do not have to entertain that miracles will cure cancer. Yet you cannot say the same for science. Science has proven it self as a reliable source for understanding the unknown, curing disease, and enhancing life.
Doing anything else is doing exactly what you all dislike about religious folks. And it irks me.
Look you want me to ignore history and I will not. Science is not perfect as you talk about below, but to say that science is equal to religion is an insult on all that we know about human development. One process has allowed mankind to discover the unknown and i will not throw that away to make you feel better about me
Another reason why this is important- Look up every great scientific discovery of the past century. You'll quickly notice people sticking dogmatically to their pet theory even in the face of overwhelming, or at the very least convincing, evidence. People have a tendency to stick to their guns, and that is bad. If you think religious folks are the most close-minded people around, then you need to read more. Close-mindedness comes largely from conviction and personal connection. Most researchers have great conviction in their work, and whenever someone threatens it they tend to respond... violently.
Yes and you will also see that the truth defeated the dogma. The detractors are looked down on in history. The unknown was made knowable by one way not by entertaining an infinite number of possibilities like you want.
Those are my thoughts on those matters in the end magickware99 you are making a claim that with lack of evidence all possibilities are equal. I deny your claim and would like you to back up your claim.
Show me why in the face of no evidence for an event that occurred all the following are absolutely equal possibilities for the unknown cause.
God did it = meditation did it = an understandably and scientifically knowable reason did it = asdhjfoiof did it = mother earth did it.
At least try to show why all of those possibilities are equal since that is your claim.
Omnipotent: The ability to achieve any achievable goal in every possible way and in more than one way.
Omnipotent: The ability to know everything that can be known including future actions.
Omnibenevolent: The self imposed requirement with the explicit purpose of causing the least amount of suffering.
Do you accept or want to change these definitions?
If you agree to the definitions then I will proceed.
Essence also mentioned he does not think his God is those 3 things. I'm pretty sure he stated his God isn't Omnipotent.
Based on what he said somewhere else, I got the impression that he does feel his God is "Omnibenevolent" in the terms of what's good for humans(since he seemed to hint he felt God dictated what was good). Since Mormons believe in extraterrestrial planets each with their own Gods, I would assume what's good for Earth isn't necessarily good for Alpha Centauri.
You claim to another poster that with no evidence all possibilities are equal and should be considered. I reject your claim. You ask why I reject your claim and say why my rejection is bad. I explain my rejection and ask you to back up your claim. You give up.
In light of you refusing to argue for why all possibilities are equal when no evidence exists I have to conclude that your claim is indefensible therefore my rejection of your claim is the correct thing to do.
To be clear I never cared about disproving a god that no one believes in I just wanted to disprove your personal god. I asked you to tell me the god you wanted me to disprove and you said I could choose. Now that you have posted a few more times on this board you have claimed to be a Mormon. So now I now what I will try to disprove. The god of the bible. I will use the biblical accounts of god as evidence in my argument.
I approve of your goal, however, the Mormon god -- since you want to disprove me specifically -- is very different from the standard Christian god, and I think you'll find Him much more challenging to disprove.
The Mormon God, among other things, is neither omnipresent nor omniscient. He has a physical body just like you or I (excepting of course that His is perfect and exalted, whatever that means.) He lives in a specific place within the highest tier of glory in the Celestial Kingdom.
He is not omniscient, but is of course the most intelligent, wise, perceptive, and intuitive being in the universe. He gets his information about the goings-on in the world from the Holy Spirit, who is omnipresent, but not omnipotent or omniscient (and is a separate person.) Because of that, God doesn't actually hold knowledge of the future; He 'merely' has enough foresight to be able to predict the future most of the time.
He is also not omnipotent, but rather holds the ultimate authority over the elements of matter. Which is to say, He cannot perform logical impossibilities, and He cannot simply 'ping' things into existence (Mormons hold that God did not create the world, he simply organized existing matter into a new shape.)
We also hold that there are an uncountable number of Gods (and, yes, Goddesses) out there who each watch over their own world, and that the purpose of life is to become more like God. Those people who succeed the most powerfully (i.e. are strictly Lawful Good, where 'lawful' means 'following all of the rules in the Bible/Book of Mormon as well as the law of the land where you happen to live') will get to hang out with God in person, and may one day learn the tricks to becoming a God themselves.
So, yeah, if you want to try to disprove that, I'll be suitably impressed. If, however, you want to take on the much simpler challenge of disproving the typical 4-Omnis-God, I'm happy to play that game with you, too.
You might want to read through the last time I played this game before you start. I'll try to avoid using the same arguments over again.
Be warned that I want to do this myself. I am not going to find some famous logical proof and just copy and paste it.
Mad props for that.
I do not know how to construct a logically sound proof it turns out. So I would like to use this as a learning opportunity if you are willing to help me learn.
Mad props for that, too.
Definitions
Omnipotent: The ability to achieve any achievable goal in every possible way and in more than one way.
Omniscient: The ability to know everything that can be known including future actions.
Omnibenevolent: The self imposed requirement with the explicit purpose of causing the least amount of suffering.
I'm going to add one to the list:
Limited by Logic: Even an omnipotent being cannot perform a feat that is patently illogical, such as creating "a circle with three points and three sides."
If you're willing to add that to the list, let's boogie!
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I wasn't sleeping. I'm a beta-tester for Google Eyelids...I was just taking the opportunity to update my Facebook page." -- Morgan Freeman, accused of napping during a TV interview.
In light of you refusing to argue for why all possibilities are equal when no evidence exists I have to conclude that your claim is indefensible therefore my rejection of your claim is the correct thing to do.
But you should always keep the possibility open, and equal in your mind so that you are willing to accept evidence when, if ever, they appear.
The problem here is the "and equal". This is entirely true and valid except the "and equal" part -- there's absolutely no reason to consider 'equal' the options that
You're stick because of germs
You're sick because you're bad and God is punishing you
You're sick because that weird old lady with the hematite jewelry gave you the Evil Eye
You're sick because you ate some bad fish
You're sick because someone just walked over the site of your future grave
You're sick because you trespassed on a voodoun practitioner's property and they just sneezed on your voodoo doll.
Those options should all be things that you are willing to consider should the perponderance of the evidence support them -- but that in no way means that you should give them all equal weight initially.
"I wasn't sleeping. I'm a beta-tester for Google Eyelids...I was just taking the opportunity to update my Facebook page." -- Morgan Freeman, accused of napping during a TV interview.
But you should always keep the possibility open, and equal in your mind so that you are willing to accept evidence when, if ever, they appear.
The problem here is the "and equal". This is entirely true and valid except the "and equal" part -- there's absolutely no reason to consider 'equal' the options that
You're stick because of germs
You're sick because you're bad and God is punishing you
You're sick because that weird old lady with the hematite jewelry gave you the Evil Eye
You're sick because you ate some bad fish
You're sick because someone just walked over the site of your future grave
You're sick because you trespassed on a voodoun practitioner's property and they just sneezed on your voodoo doll.
Those options should all be things that you are willing to consider should the perponderance of the evidence support them -- but that in no way means that you should give them all equal weight initially.
Why shouldn't they be given equal weight initially? The use of evidence allows you to cross off many of them very very quickly, and that is the point of an evidence based approach.
I see some streak of light in the sky. I think it's a UFO. My mom thinks it's a comet.
Without any evidence whatsoever, both have weight and are valid, simply because there is no evidence to support any of them. Both of them remain as empty claims because of said lack of evidence. It is probably note-worthy that I said empty. I wonder if people are misunderstanding me because they think I'm saying valid and equal as if they mean anything in significance. This is incorrect. Without evidence, a claim is nothing but a glass full of air.
But, wait! My mom is smart and so contacts a local astronomer. He confirms that he saw the streak of light too, and it matches everything he knows regarding comets. Now my mom has evidence to support her claim, and all of a sudden my claim that it's a UFO looks really ****ing weak, because I have no evidence to support my claim while my mom does.
In most cases, evidence exist in abundance and can be found if we just know how to look for them. As such, a lot of outlandish claims become groundless and insubstantial.
As in the case of my mom's cancer though, there is no evidence. We just have a set of facts, none of which help to support a conclusion of how her cancer disappeared.
It is awfully rare now to see situations in which we have no evidence to support anything. In fact, I would imagine that you can't see such situations outside of things we don't quite fully comprehend, like organisms.
To bring this to a full circle though, so many people refused to consider the tectonic plates theory in the early 20th century because it just seemed utterly impossible that the earth underneath us is constantly moving. They simply couldn't find it in themselves to look at the situation without emotion, and as such a theory that should have been accepted, or at least taken seriously, in the early 1900s took close to 60 years to convince people.
Yes, it happened eventually, but imagine what could happen if people just learned to be dispassionate and took things at face-value, without their prejudices and their passions clouding their view of things? What if they were able to give everything equal weight instead of thinking that his/her pet theory is correct simply because he/she worked on it more/likes it better than the other?
But you should always keep the possibility open, and equal in your mind so that you are willing to accept evidence when, if ever, they appear.
The problem here is the "and equal". This is entirely true and valid except the "and equal" part -- there's absolutely no reason to consider 'equal' the options that
You're stick because of germs
You're sick because you're bad and God is punishing you
You're sick because that weird old lady with the hematite jewelry gave you the Evil Eye
You're sick because you ate some bad fish
You're sick because someone just walked over the site of your future grave
You're sick because you trespassed on a voodoun practitioner's property and they just sneezed on your voodoo doll.
Those options should all be things that you are willing to consider should the perponderance of the evidence support them -- but that in no way means that you should give them all equal weight initially.
Why shouldn't they be given equal weight initially? The use of evidence allows you to cross off many of them very very quickly, and that is the point of an evidence based approach.
"Very very quickly" should be fast enough that you can consider it part of "initially". There should be no need whatsoever to actually go through and intellectually stop and think about the Evil Eye, the voodoo doll, and other silly options -- they should be discarded so quickly that by the time you actually start intellectualizing, you've already dropped them as worthy of a single neuron-firing.
This is not to say that you shouldn't be ready to pick them back up again if the evidence starts mounting in their favor -- but you really shouldn't be thinking about them in the first place unless you have good reason.
imagine what could happen if people just learned to be dispassionate and took things at face-value, without their prejudices and their passions clouding their view of things? What if they were able to give everything equal weight instead of thinking that his/her pet theory is correct simply because he/she worked on it more/likes it better than the other?
Unfortunately, this is actually impossible. Whether you realize it or not, you prefer certain theories simply because you've been exposed to them before. It's called the Mere Exposure Effect, or in a more advanced form it's called Priming. Everyone gives the theories they have the most familiar with/exposure to more weight than others; wishing otherwise is a waste of time.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I wasn't sleeping. I'm a beta-tester for Google Eyelids...I was just taking the opportunity to update my Facebook page." -- Morgan Freeman, accused of napping during a TV interview.
"For those who believe, no explanation is necessary. For those who do not believe, no explanation is possible."
I would really like know how those who claim their is no evidence for religion explain how CHristianity has been convincing people of the truth of its claims for two thousand odd years already?
I would really like know how those who claim their is no evidence for religion explain how CHristianity has been convincing people of the truth of its claims for two thousand odd years already?
The same way con artists get away with scamming people again and again. Also, see stage magicians.
Look, I'm a Christian, but I'm not about to claim that a large group of people can't be fooled.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"[Screw] you and the green you ramped in on." - My EDH battle cry. If I had one. Which I don't.
"For those who believe, no explanation is necessary. For those who do not believe, no explanation is possible."
I would really like know how those who claim their is no evidence for religion explain how CHristianity has been convincing people of the truth of its claims for two thousand odd years already?
Ummm....
Indoctrination
Peer Pressure
Proselytizing
Charismatic Persuasion
Get 'em while they're young
Get 'em while they're desperate
Get 'em while they're uneducated
Get 'em while they're vulnerable
Get 'em while they're ignorant
You do realize that the Church, in virtually every century since the fall of Rome sent out missionaries backed by the sword of the
military into just about every corner of the world to subjugate, indoctrinate, and convert, by force if necessary, as many
indigenous peoples as possible. They still do it today. Maybe not as often by force, but take starving, ignorant, uneducated,
people and watch how easy it is to indoctrinate them.
Especially when the plate of food comes to their hand following a bible.
There is no evidence for <God(s)>
No one is saying there is no evidence for Religion(s).
Even I agree with the claims of historical Jesus, Homer, Muhammad, Moses, Abraham, John Smith, L. Ron
Hubbard...
The Torah/Bible/Quran are plenty of evidence for Religion. They are not evidence for God(s).
That Homer lived and wrote the Iliad and Odyssey is not evidence for Zeus or Apollo.
That Moses lived, and wrote (at least) Genesis - Exodus is not evidence that he actually talked to God on Sinai.
That Muhammad lived and wrote most of the Quran is not evidence that he received commands from Allah.
That The Apostles Paul, John, Matthew, et al. lived and wrote letters to other Christians in the area around 60-100AD
is not evidence that Jesus was actually the son of God, or even God in the flesh.
These things are NOT evidence for <God(s)>, the only way that they are is if you are gullible enough to just take their words for absolute truth.
Is the fact that the Egyptians lived and carved the Hieroglyphs evidence of Ra or Horus?
No. That's ridiculous.
All these things prove, and all they are evidence for, is that those people believed in this stuff. Unfortunately, we have not one shred of actual evidence for the existence of <God(s)>
"Very very quickly" should be fast enough that you can consider it part of "initially". There should be no need whatsoever to actually go through and intellectually stop and think about the Evil Eye, the voodoo doll, and other silly options -- they should be discarded so quickly that by the time you actually start intellectualizing, you've already dropped them as worthy of a single neuron-firing.
This is not to say that you shouldn't be ready to pick them back up again if the evidence starts mounting in their favor -- but you really shouldn't be thinking about them in the first place unless you have good reason.
True. That is why I started this whole thing on the basis of people turning towards their beliefs in spite of no evidence to support any conclusion.
My pet peeve, as it were, are people who insist on thinking that there must be an explanation that they are comfortable with, in spite of there being nothing to support anything at all.
Unfortunately, this is actually impossible. Whether you realize it or not, you prefer certain theories simply because you've been exposed to them before. It's called the Mere Exposure Effect, or in a more advanced form it's called Priming. Everyone gives the theories they have the most familiar with/exposure to more weight than others; wishing otherwise is a waste of time.
I understand that the above is true.
But I believe that the thing that separates us from most animals is our ability to imagine and attempt to surpass the impossible.
It is certainly possible to reduce your tendency to give more weight to your pet theory, much like how it's possible to reduce your tendency to generalize about race, etc.
Remove it entirely? Impossible, but reduce it greatly? I would say that's quite possible, and that's what I want to see.
I would really like know how those who claim their is no evidence for religion explain how CHristianity has been convincing people of the truth of its claims for two thousand odd years already?
Only if you can explain how Hinduism has been convincing people of the truth of its claims for four thousand years.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Because most people have the distinct and unsettling feeling that there is more to life than what they see and touch, and they want to feel like they have more control over their circumstances than they actually do?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I wasn't sleeping. I'm a beta-tester for Google Eyelids...I was just taking the opportunity to update my Facebook page." -- Morgan Freeman, accused of napping during a TV interview.
Because most people have the distinct and unsettling feeling that there is more to life than what they see and touch, and they want to feel like they have more control over their circumstances than they actually do?
That unsettling feeling you are getting there is probably your mind trying to make sense out of chaos that is, say, less adaptable to our ordered minds. I would suggest a book to you:
The book is mostly not about religion, but all the other superstitions that people have based mostly on assumptions (not always, or even usually cognitively) that have been made to make sense of something otherwise mysterious or nonsensical.
Also Michael Shermer has a TED Talk as well that I highly recommend:
Our belief is not a belief. Our principles are not a faith. We do not rely solely upon science and reason, because these are necessary rather than sufficient factors, but we distrust anything that contradicts science or outrages reason. We may differ on many things, but what we respect is free inquiry, openmindedness, and the pursuit of ideas for their own sake.
― Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great
"For those who believe, no explanation is necessary. For those who do not believe, no explanation is possible."
I would really like know how those who claim their is no evidence for religion explain how CHristianity has been convincing people of the truth of its claims for two thousand odd years already?
Ummm....
Indoctrination
Peer Pressure
Proselytizing
Charismatic Persuasion
Get 'em while they're young
Get 'em while they're desperate
Get 'em while they're uneducated
Get 'em while they're vulnerable
Get 'em while they're ignorant
You do realize that the Church, in virtually every century since the fall of Rome sent out missionaries backed by the sword of the
military into just about every corner of the world to subjugate, indoctrinate, and convert, by force if necessary, as many
indigenous peoples as possible. They still do it today. Maybe not as often by force, but take starving, ignorant, uneducated,
people and watch how easy it is to indoctrinate them.
Especially when the plate of food comes to their hand following a bible.
There is no evidence for <God(s)>
No one is saying there is no evidence for Religion(s).
Even I agree with the claims of historical Jesus, Homer, Muhammad, Moses, Abraham, John Smith, L. Ron
Hubbard...
The Torah/Bible/Quran are plenty of evidence for Religion. They are not evidence for God(s).
That Homer lived and wrote the Iliad and Odyssey is not evidence for Zeus or Apollo. That Moses lived, and wrote (at least) Genesis - Exodus is not evidence that he actually talked to God on Sinai.
That Muhammad lived and wrote most of the Quran is not evidence that he received commands from Allah.
That The Apostles Paul, John, Matthew, et al. lived and wrote letters to other Christians in the area around 60-100AD
is not evidence that Jesus was actually the son of God, or even God in the flesh.
These things are NOT evidence for <God(s)>, the only way that they are is if you are gullible enough to just take their words for absolute truth.
Is the fact that the Egyptians lived and carved the Hieroglyphs evidence of Ra or Horus?
No. That's ridiculous.
All these things prove, and all they are evidence for, is that those people believed in this stuff. Unfortunately, we have not one shred of actual evidence for the existence of <God(s)>
And even then isn't it debated whether or not Moses actually wrote those books?
"For those who believe, no explanation is necessary. For those who do not believe, no explanation is possible."
I would really like know how those who claim their is no evidence for religion explain how CHristianity has been convincing people of the truth of its claims for two thousand odd years already?
Ummm....
Indoctrination
Peer Pressure
Proselytizing
Charismatic Persuasion
Get 'em while they're young
Get 'em while they're desperate
Get 'em while they're uneducated
Get 'em while they're vulnerable
Get 'em while they're ignorant
You do realize that the Church, in virtually every century since the fall of Rome sent out missionaries backed by the sword of the
military into just about every corner of the world to subjugate, indoctrinate, and convert, by force if necessary, as many
indigenous peoples as possible. They still do it today. Maybe not as often by force, but take starving, ignorant, uneducated,
people and watch how easy it is to indoctrinate them.
Especially when the plate of food comes to their hand following a bible.
There is no evidence for <God(s)>
No one is saying there is no evidence for Religion(s).
Even I agree with the claims of historical Jesus, Homer, Muhammad, Moses, Abraham, John Smith, L. Ron
Hubbard...
The Torah/Bible/Quran are plenty of evidence for Religion. They are not evidence for God(s).
That Homer lived and wrote the Iliad and Odyssey is not evidence for Zeus or Apollo. That Moses lived, and wrote (at least) Genesis - Exodus is not evidence that he actually talked to God on Sinai.
That Muhammad lived and wrote most of the Quran is not evidence that he received commands from Allah.
That The Apostles Paul, John, Matthew, et al. lived and wrote letters to other Christians in the area around 60-100AD
is not evidence that Jesus was actually the son of God, or even God in the flesh.
These things are NOT evidence for <God(s)>, the only way that they are is if you are gullible enough to just take their words for absolute truth.
Is the fact that the Egyptians lived and carved the Hieroglyphs evidence of Ra or Horus?
No. That's ridiculous.
All these things prove, and all they are evidence for, is that those people believed in this stuff. Unfortunately, we have not one shred of actual evidence for the existence of <God(s)>
And even then isn't it debated whether or not Moses actually wrote those books?
Only in some cases. Most scholars and historians credit Moses for Genesis-Exodus (at the very least)
Some do debate that claim. The books authorship is missing from the original findings, and since Moses is named a couple times in Third-Person, some believe that's evidence that it was written by someone else.
I don't think it's a big deal because my argument stands either way. Whether it was written by Moses or someone else, it's still not evidence for the actual existence of <God(s)> it is only evidence that some ancient Jews believed it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I agree that i view the world in my own way. I just do not want to be glued to my beliefs because my beliefs have and will change.
I do hold physical evidence and science very high in my view of the world. I could be duped by bad or even faulty science. I hold on to the hope that the science community is going to eventually purge the bad science. For example i never believed that vaccines caused autism, but if enough false studies were published i would have. Then i would hope that some other expert would show the world that the vaccine link was false so i could change my mind. In in other words if global warming has been an elaborate exercise in bad or fraudulent science then they got me.
One of my most basic assumptions is that given enough time humans will discovery and understand everything. For me existence is divided into the stuff we do know and the stuff we have yet to learn.
Atheism is not a philosophy it is the start of finding a philosophy
Of course you have to go somewhere after you reject god. Atheism is the rejection. What you believe in the absence of god is the world view. A lot of the time that world view will be science and physical world based because after you reject god that is all we have left.
o.k. First up the god of non-existence further referred to as god.
Existence is the collection of all things that exists
Non-Existence is the collection of all things that does not and will never exist
God is a being outside of existence.
God is not in existence therefore god is in non-existence.
If god is in non-existence then god must not exist.
That was easy. If you want in other more relevant gods disproved you will have to provide me with one.
I am o.k. with saying i do not know something, but i am completely against the concept that in the face of no evidence then all possibilities are equal.
Example a little girl gets cancer. All doctors say she will die in one week. Two weeks latter she is alive and has no cancer. There is absolutely no evidence for why this occurred.
I would say I do not know why this happened. But i will not let people then claim that
god did it = meditation did it = mother nature did it = a rational and scientifically understandable process did it = any random thing i can make up.
We know that one of those works. We have past experience. The other three are not equal possibilities.
Well, now your talking about "trust." As in, who/what the person trust to give them accurate information about the world. That's normally the next tier up from what I was talking about.
You probably should spend some time reading higher level logic then, because--based on what we understand how the universe works--"knowing everything" is a fundamental impossibility.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnchhausen_trilemma
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarski%27s_undefinability_theorem
Ok, if you want to define it that way. "Pure Atheists" then would likely just be Apatheists and Theological Noncognitives.
However, now we really are just playing word games.
Alright, so atheists all do have have a world view; it's just not "Pure Atheism."
There are so many gaps in this 'proof', it's hard to know where to start.
Definition of existence. Unicorns. Are they in the 'exist' column, or the 'non-exist' column? If they don't exist, how can you know what I mean when I say 'unicorns'?
Definition of existence (2). Dinosaurs. Are they in the 'exist' column, or the 'non-exist' column? What makes them different from unicorns?
Completeness. You've defined 'Existence' and 'Non-Existence', but you haven't defined those as the only two options. There's no evidence that "outside of existence" is congruent with "non-existence".
Argument by redefinition. The 'existence' referred to in the commonly-sited phrase "God resides outside of existence" isn't the same term that you defined in your proof.
OR
Logical Impossibility. (Take your pick.) By your definition of "existence", God cannot be a "being", because a "being" is defined as "the quality or state of having existence." Thus, your postulate "God is a being outside of existence" is equivalent to calling God "a circle with three corners and three sides."
So...yeah. Care to try again?
Wit and wisdom from my four-year-old son. Recommended for anyone who enjoys a good belly laugh.
Why?
In a situation in which there is absolutely no proof whatsoever to even begin to make an inclination for judgment one way or another, why does what you believe in trump others?
Why?
I pursuit this dogmatically because this is close-minded thinking. Making even a semblance of a judgment, or thinking in one manner when there is absolutely no evidence to support said thought, is a mark of being close-minded.
See, it is rather irrelevant whether something is highly unlikely. It should still be kept in your mind so that you are willing to qualify the situation against it. What I worry about are people writing things off out of hand, simply because it is unlikely to exist/w.e.
So what if we have no evidence that miracles exist? That doesn't preclude the existence of miracles. It merely means that we have no evidence to support the existence of miracles, and as such you don't need to believe in it or give it credible thought.
But you should always keep the possibility open, and equal in your mind so that you are willing to accept evidence when, if ever, they appear.
Doing anything else is doing exactly what you all dislike about religious folks. And it irks me.
Another reason why this is important- Look up every great scientific discovery of the past century. You'll quickly notice people sticking dogmatically to their pet theory even in the face of overwhelming, or at the very least convincing, evidence. People have a tendency to stick to their guns, and that is bad. If you think religious folks are the most close-minded people around, then you need to read more. Close-mindedness comes largely from conviction and personal connection. Most researchers have great conviction in their work, and whenever someone threatens it they tend to respond... violently.
You are correct I should not have tried to type up a pithy retort in less than a minute. To be clear I never cared about disproving a god that no one believes in I just wanted to disprove your personal god. I asked you to tell me the god you wanted me to disprove and you said I could choose. Now that you have posted a few more times on this board you have claimed to be a Mormon. So now I now what I will try to disprove. The god of the bible. I will use the biblical accounts of god as evidence in my argument.
Be warned that I want to do this myself. I am not going to find some famous logical proof and just copy and paste it. You wanted to know why I know god does not exist. So I will argue the point myself. I do not know how to construct a logically sound proof it turns out. So I would like to use this as a learning opportunity if you are willing to help me learn.
Definitions
Omnipotent: The ability to achieve any achievable goal in every possible way and in more than one way.
Omnipotent: The ability to know everything that can be known including future actions.
Omnibenevolent: The self imposed requirement with the explicit purpose of causing the least amount of suffering.
Do you accept or want to change these definitions?
If you agree to the definitions then I will proceed.
We have past experience that tells us that unknown things will be learned through logic and observation. Thus we know that science has at least a chance to figure out the problem. We have nothing to indicate prayer works.
It is not that my belief trumps others. It is that we have used science to solve the unknown so there is no reason to believe that science will not solve more unknowns. Where as prayer has done nothing before so we have no reason to believe it will start working now.
We have past experience as evidence that science works. As much as you want this situation to have no evidence it does not. We do have evidence that science can discover how the unknown works. That matters no matter if you think it doesn't matter.
Why? Can i claim that unicorn feces is equivalent to prayer?
This is ridiculous. You must entertain all possibilities before you can try to solve a problem. Has thinking about the matting patters of HJEOEDFLF( on planet GJROEJFOPF_ED every helped to solve a problem. Why dont people think about the matting patters of HJEOEDFLF( on planet GJROEJFOPF_ED?
Maybe it is because that is not how science works at all. We do not have to entertain all possibilities in order to understand the unknown.
Exactly we do not have to entertain that miracles will cure cancer. Yet you cannot say the same for science. Science has proven it self as a reliable source for understanding the unknown, curing disease, and enhancing life.
I say you should always look for evidence, but that does not mean I have to keep any possibility open to look for evidence.
Look you want me to ignore history and I will not. Science is not perfect as you talk about below, but to say that science is equal to religion is an insult on all that we know about human development. One process has allowed mankind to discover the unknown and i will not throw that away to make you feel better about me
Yes and you will also see that the truth defeated the dogma. The detractors are looked down on in history. The unknown was made knowable by one way not by entertaining an infinite number of possibilities like you want.
Those are my thoughts on those matters in the end magickware99 you are making a claim that with lack of evidence all possibilities are equal. I deny your claim and would like you to back up your claim.
Show me why in the face of no evidence for an event that occurred all the following are absolutely equal possibilities for the unknown cause.
God did it = meditation did it = an understandably and scientifically knowable reason did it = asdhjfoiof did it = mother earth did it.
At least try to show why all of those possibilities are equal since that is your claim.
Essence also mentioned he does not think his God is those 3 things. I'm pretty sure he stated his God isn't Omnipotent.
Based on what he said somewhere else, I got the impression that he does feel his God is "Omnibenevolent" in the terms of what's good for humans(since he seemed to hint he felt God dictated what was good). Since Mormons believe in extraterrestrial planets each with their own Gods, I would assume what's good for Earth isn't necessarily good for Alpha Centauri.
Anyway, if you're planning on debating a Mormon the same way you might a run-of-the-mill protestant, you're going to have a bad time (video for reference on the differences).
I am confused by our conversation.
You claim to another poster that with no evidence all possibilities are equal and should be considered. I reject your claim. You ask why I reject your claim and say why my rejection is bad. I explain my rejection and ask you to back up your claim. You give up.
In light of you refusing to argue for why all possibilities are equal when no evidence exists I have to conclude that your claim is indefensible therefore my rejection of your claim is the correct thing to do.
I approve of your goal, however, the Mormon god -- since you want to disprove me specifically -- is very different from the standard Christian god, and I think you'll find Him much more challenging to disprove.
The Mormon God, among other things, is neither omnipresent nor omniscient. He has a physical body just like you or I (excepting of course that His is perfect and exalted, whatever that means.) He lives in a specific place within the highest tier of glory in the Celestial Kingdom.
He is not omniscient, but is of course the most intelligent, wise, perceptive, and intuitive being in the universe. He gets his information about the goings-on in the world from the Holy Spirit, who is omnipresent, but not omnipotent or omniscient (and is a separate person.) Because of that, God doesn't actually hold knowledge of the future; He 'merely' has enough foresight to be able to predict the future most of the time.
He is also not omnipotent, but rather holds the ultimate authority over the elements of matter. Which is to say, He cannot perform logical impossibilities, and He cannot simply 'ping' things into existence (Mormons hold that God did not create the world, he simply organized existing matter into a new shape.)
We also hold that there are an uncountable number of Gods (and, yes, Goddesses) out there who each watch over their own world, and that the purpose of life is to become more like God. Those people who succeed the most powerfully (i.e. are strictly Lawful Good, where 'lawful' means 'following all of the rules in the Bible/Book of Mormon as well as the law of the land where you happen to live') will get to hang out with God in person, and may one day learn the tricks to becoming a God themselves.
So, yeah, if you want to try to disprove that, I'll be suitably impressed. If, however, you want to take on the much simpler challenge of disproving the typical 4-Omnis-God, I'm happy to play that game with you, too.
You might want to read through the last time I played this game before you start. I'll try to avoid using the same arguments over again.
Mad props for that.
Mad props for that, too.
I'm going to add one to the list:
Limited by Logic: Even an omnipotent being cannot perform a feat that is patently illogical, such as creating "a circle with three points and three sides."
If you're willing to add that to the list, let's boogie!
Wit and wisdom from my four-year-old son. Recommended for anyone who enjoys a good belly laugh.
Feel free to do so.
I really could care less.
The problem here is the "and equal". This is entirely true and valid except the "and equal" part -- there's absolutely no reason to consider 'equal' the options that
Those options should all be things that you are willing to consider should the perponderance of the evidence support them -- but that in no way means that you should give them all equal weight initially.
Wit and wisdom from my four-year-old son. Recommended for anyone who enjoys a good belly laugh.
Why shouldn't they be given equal weight initially? The use of evidence allows you to cross off many of them very very quickly, and that is the point of an evidence based approach.
I see some streak of light in the sky. I think it's a UFO. My mom thinks it's a comet.
Without any evidence whatsoever, both have weight and are valid, simply because there is no evidence to support any of them. Both of them remain as empty claims because of said lack of evidence. It is probably note-worthy that I said empty. I wonder if people are misunderstanding me because they think I'm saying valid and equal as if they mean anything in significance. This is incorrect. Without evidence, a claim is nothing but a glass full of air.
But, wait! My mom is smart and so contacts a local astronomer. He confirms that he saw the streak of light too, and it matches everything he knows regarding comets. Now my mom has evidence to support her claim, and all of a sudden my claim that it's a UFO looks really ****ing weak, because I have no evidence to support my claim while my mom does.
In most cases, evidence exist in abundance and can be found if we just know how to look for them. As such, a lot of outlandish claims become groundless and insubstantial.
As in the case of my mom's cancer though, there is no evidence. We just have a set of facts, none of which help to support a conclusion of how her cancer disappeared.
It is awfully rare now to see situations in which we have no evidence to support anything. In fact, I would imagine that you can't see such situations outside of things we don't quite fully comprehend, like organisms.
To bring this to a full circle though, so many people refused to consider the tectonic plates theory in the early 20th century because it just seemed utterly impossible that the earth underneath us is constantly moving. They simply couldn't find it in themselves to look at the situation without emotion, and as such a theory that should have been accepted, or at least taken seriously, in the early 1900s took close to 60 years to convince people.
Yes, it happened eventually, but imagine what could happen if people just learned to be dispassionate and took things at face-value, without their prejudices and their passions clouding their view of things? What if they were able to give everything equal weight instead of thinking that his/her pet theory is correct simply because he/she worked on it more/likes it better than the other?
"Very very quickly" should be fast enough that you can consider it part of "initially". There should be no need whatsoever to actually go through and intellectually stop and think about the Evil Eye, the voodoo doll, and other silly options -- they should be discarded so quickly that by the time you actually start intellectualizing, you've already dropped them as worthy of a single neuron-firing.
This is not to say that you shouldn't be ready to pick them back up again if the evidence starts mounting in their favor -- but you really shouldn't be thinking about them in the first place unless you have good reason.
Unfortunately, this is actually impossible. Whether you realize it or not, you prefer certain theories simply because you've been exposed to them before. It's called the Mere Exposure Effect, or in a more advanced form it's called Priming. Everyone gives the theories they have the most familiar with/exposure to more weight than others; wishing otherwise is a waste of time.
Wit and wisdom from my four-year-old son. Recommended for anyone who enjoys a good belly laugh.
I would really like know how those who claim their is no evidence for religion explain how CHristianity has been convincing people of the truth of its claims for two thousand odd years already?
The same way con artists get away with scamming people again and again. Also, see stage magicians.
Look, I'm a Christian, but I'm not about to claim that a large group of people can't be fooled.
Pristaxcontrombmodruu!
Ummm....
Indoctrination
Peer Pressure
Proselytizing
Charismatic Persuasion
Get 'em while they're young
Get 'em while they're desperate
Get 'em while they're uneducated
Get 'em while they're vulnerable
Get 'em while they're ignorant
You do realize that the Church, in virtually every century since the fall of Rome sent out missionaries backed by the sword of the
military into just about every corner of the world to subjugate, indoctrinate, and convert, by force if necessary, as many
indigenous peoples as possible. They still do it today. Maybe not as often by force, but take starving, ignorant, uneducated,
people and watch how easy it is to indoctrinate them.
Especially when the plate of food comes to their hand following a bible.
There is no evidence for <God(s)>
No one is saying there is no evidence for Religion(s).
Even I agree with the claims of historical Jesus, Homer, Muhammad, Moses, Abraham, John Smith, L. Ron
Hubbard...
The Torah/Bible/Quran are plenty of evidence for Religion. They are not evidence for God(s).
That Homer lived and wrote the Iliad and Odyssey is not evidence for Zeus or Apollo.
That Moses lived, and wrote (at least) Genesis - Exodus is not evidence that he actually talked to God on Sinai.
That Muhammad lived and wrote most of the Quran is not evidence that he received commands from Allah.
That The Apostles Paul, John, Matthew, et al. lived and wrote letters to other Christians in the area around 60-100AD
is not evidence that Jesus was actually the son of God, or even God in the flesh.
These things are NOT evidence for <God(s)>, the only way that they are is if you are gullible enough to just take their words for absolute truth.
Is the fact that the Egyptians lived and carved the Hieroglyphs evidence of Ra or Horus?
No. That's ridiculous.
All these things prove, and all they are evidence for, is that those people believed in this stuff. Unfortunately, we have not one shred of actual evidence for the existence of <God(s)>
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
True. That is why I started this whole thing on the basis of people turning towards their beliefs in spite of no evidence to support any conclusion.
My pet peeve, as it were, are people who insist on thinking that there must be an explanation that they are comfortable with, in spite of there being nothing to support anything at all.
I understand that the above is true.
But I believe that the thing that separates us from most animals is our ability to imagine and attempt to surpass the impossible.
It is certainly possible to reduce your tendency to give more weight to your pet theory, much like how it's possible to reduce your tendency to generalize about race, etc.
Remove it entirely? Impossible, but reduce it greatly? I would say that's quite possible, and that's what I want to see.
Only if you can explain how Hinduism has been convincing people of the truth of its claims for four thousand years.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Wit and wisdom from my four-year-old son. Recommended for anyone who enjoys a good belly laugh.
That unsettling feeling you are getting there is probably your mind trying to make sense out of chaos that is, say, less adaptable to our ordered minds. I would suggest a book to you:
Why People Believe Weird Things
The book is mostly not about religion, but all the other superstitions that people have based mostly on assumptions (not always, or even usually cognitively) that have been made to make sense of something otherwise mysterious or nonsensical.
Also Michael Shermer has a TED Talk as well that I highly recommend:
VIDEO: Why People Believe Weird Things
Let us know what you think of at least the Vid.
― Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great
And even then isn't it debated whether or not Moses actually wrote those books?
Only in some cases. Most scholars and historians credit Moses for Genesis-Exodus (at the very least)
Some do debate that claim. The books authorship is missing from the original findings, and since Moses is named a couple times in Third-Person, some believe that's evidence that it was written by someone else.
I don't think it's a big deal because my argument stands either way. Whether it was written by Moses or someone else, it's still not evidence for the actual existence of <God(s)> it is only evidence that some ancient Jews believed it.
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein