quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: That's your opinion. I'm not sure it is worth my time outlining the differences to you between the importance of thinking everything is pink and believing that there is more to the universe than what we can see and that it means something.
Fine; choose another example. Martin Luther, for example, believed that there was more to the universe than we can see, and that it meant it was ok to kill Jews. I think this is moderately important. How is that belief different from yours, if it's not because of evidence?
Perhaps the best way to judge a belief from the outside of it, is to judge the results of that belief. This is tough to do en masse, though, because people will have different motivations for and different reactions to what may appear to be the same beliefs.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BaoQingTian: Go back in time 1000 years with a television. […]
Wait a minute! Time travel is not on the “high technology” list. Just wanted to say it for the record.
A.
I think he's just saying that someone more evolved could fool us, as we could fool those that lived 1000 years ago. Time travel isn't really needed, it was just an analogy that wanted to exclude aliens.
Posts: 4519 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: That's your opinion. I'm not sure it is worth my time outlining the differences to you between the importance of thinking everything is pink and believing that there is more to the universe than what we can see and that it means something.
Fine; choose another example. Martin Luther, for example, believed that there was more to the universe than we can see, and that it meant it was ok to kill Jews. I think this is moderately important. How is that belief different from yours, if it's not because of evidence?
Perhaps the best way to judge a belief from the outside of it, is to judge the results of that belief. This is tough to do en masse, though, because people will have different motivations for and different reactions to what may appear to be the same beliefs.
I do not think you can apply such a standard. Consider : If Luther's beliefs had been applied, the Jews of Europe would all have been killed. (Incidentally, Hitler was a strong admirer of Luther.) Is that a bad thing? Not according to Luther's beliefs. Why should your standards, and not his, be applied to the judgment? Conversely, in judging your beliefs, why should your standards and not mine be applied?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Still waiting on what sort of proof the aliens are offering, or are we to just assumed its "undeniable?"
Ok. I’ll play the “aliens’ advocate” part.
They produce recordings (full 3D holographic + sound) of any past events required. They also reproduce any “effect” that “required a deity” (i.e. was beyond human possibilities at the time).
---
Of course, what I have seen here is that “undeniable proof” does not really exist. Given enough faith, one can deny any proof. But that is a personal thing. (I need not debate that more.)
---
As for the idea that “if aliens did the miracles and made us think they are some deity, then they are that deity” then let me emphasize it: What my “what if” scenario presents is the situation where the aliens say (and prove) that there is no need of “something more” in this universe (i.e. the deities) to explain what humans have experienced through the ages. They could provide a “meaning of life” too, but that is beyond my present “what if”.
posted
I know a girl whom I would consider and "atheist," though she loathes the definition. She considers herself a "bright." Brights, apparently don't like the term atheism because it doesn't define them by what they believe but by what they don't believe and who defines themselves that way? Still, I think she's gone a little overboard considering the culture she lives in. When a persons beliefs are contradictory to a belief held traditionally by the majority of their culture, who can blame the majority for labeling them anti-whatever it is.
Still, I don't know if anyone cares much if the original question gets answered but for the benefit of suminionA I'll share my personal belief.
Religion, in the context of it having to do with God, is really just a way of reminding us about Him and trying to get us live the way we believe He wants us to. It provides instruction, community, and a place to foster knowledge and faith (at least, as a Mormon, that's how I veiw my religion). If you take away all the material aspects of religion, it doesn't take away God, nor His desire for us to live in a way that will make us happy. Contrary to what some might believe, I feel that perfect obedience is synonomous with perfect happiness. If God knows everything and God loves His children, then of course His instructions are really a path to happiness.
So I would continue doing what I already do, lamenting the fact that I had lost my church community, that ordinances that I believe to be crucial to salvation had ceased and missing my scriptures. But my belief would not be diminished. I would still keep the commandments that I was allowed to keep and pray in my heart.
And if it really were aliens, then that was in God's plan anyway and it will all work out in the end. Anything that had been missed would be made up, eventually.
Call me simple. But I can't imagine any other life. Religion is not a just nice tradition for me or an extracurricular activity. It is what I use to keep me close to God. I don't believe that there is anything that could ever be done that could eradicate religion.
Posts: 293 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Chalk up another one for the "I don't care about facts, I believe what I believe" camp, then.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Let me rephrase the question a little, taking the aliens out of it. Suppose I revealed that I had a functioning time machine, and had used it to go back in time, appear as the 'Archangel Gabriel' to Mohammed, and had dictated him the Koran. I am able to demonstrate this by taking you back in the time machine to watch me doing precisely that; you recognise the "Archangel's" voice and face as mine. Would you accept this as proof that Islam is false? If not, why not? If so, what makes this any different from the scenario with aliens? And if Allah is using me as a tool - well, first, why not just cut out the middleman? And second, what happened to my free will?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: [I do not think you can apply such a standard. Consider : If Luther's beliefs had been applied, the Jews of Europe would all have been killed. (Incidentally, Hitler was a strong admirer of Luther.) Is that a bad thing? Not according to Luther's beliefs. Why should your standards, and not his, be applied to the judgment? Conversely, in judging your beliefs, why should your standards and not mine be applied?
Because he was wrong. Clearly.
Honey, I'm not trying to convert or convince you. There are all sorts of beliefs - some are life-affirming and lead to kindness and other good; others do not. I really don't have a very difficult time choosing between them.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
you should write a book about it KOM, you could call it "Pastwatch 2"
Also an Islam based on KOM's personality seems to make alot of sense!
Seriously though demonstrating that you had created an entire religion that was totally counterfeit does not prove that every religion is false.
I've already responded to how I feel about irevocable proof that religion is all false or man made. So Ill stop talking now.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by suminonA: They produce recordings (full 3D holographic + sound) of any past events required. They also reproduce any “effect” that “required a deity” (i.e. was beyond human possibilities at the time).
As Corwin clarified, the 'time-travel' phrase in my example was a tool I used to indicate a vast difference in technological level. Let's just say that these aliens are 20,000 years beyond our current technological level.
How would them showing us 3d holo-images and impressive works that only diety could do any different than showing a caveman a television and demonstrating we can create light with our divine light stick?
KOM- If I was able to go back in time, and interact with Jesus or Joseph Smith and found them to be frauds (if Jesus was not in fact resurrected or if Joseph Smith did not in fact see God and Jesus for example), I would have no choice but to abandom my religion.
So put me in whatever camp you want Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Seriously though demonstrating that you had created an entire religion that was totally counterfeit does not prove that every religion is false.
Not the question I asked. Try again. Would the scenario I outlined be proof that Islam was false?
quote:King of Men, what facts do I not care about?
Why, you said so yourself:
quote:Call me simple. But I can't imagine any other life. Religion is not a just nice tradition for me or an extracurricular activity. It is what I use to keep me close to God. I don't believe that there is anything that could ever be done that could eradicate religion.
There is absolutely no fact, even hypothetically, that could possibly dissuade you from your belief? Come now.
quote:Your choice. But you brought up Hitler so I win anyway.
More accurately, you are astoundingly intellectually dishonest. To merely assert your own beliefs as correct, with no attempt to ground them in fact, is morally repugnant. It is an abdication of everything that makes humans unique. I have no words for how much this disgusts me.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It isn't an intellectual question. To claim that it is and that I have intellectual answers would be dishonest.
edit to add: I believe that human beings are more than their intellect so I don't believe that it goes against "everything" that makes humans unique.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Seriously though demonstrating that you had created an entire religion that was totally counterfeit does not prove that every religion is false.
Not the question I asked. Try again. Would the scenario I outlined be proof that Islam was false?
I already asserted a page ago that if you produced "undeniable" proof of my religion being false, that I would give up that belief as I wouldnt elect to fight against "undeniable" evidence.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by DaisyMae: Still, I don't know if anyone cares much if the original question gets answered but for the benefit of suminionA I'll share my personal belief.
Thank you for your contribution.
BTW, I myself don’t see “atheist” as a negative definition (as in “anti-whatever”). Atheist simply means “belief there is no deity”. I’m as “anti religion” as theists are “anti logic” (that is, not at all ).
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: It isn't an intellectual question. To claim that it is and that I have intellectual answers would be dishonest.
It most certainly is an intellectual question; it is about, firstly, what is true, and secondly, about how we know what we know. And for either question, mere assertion is to descend to the level of the kindergarten bully, who says it's his turn on the swings because he says so and wants to believe it. We usually expect rather more of adults.
quote:edit to add: I believe that human beings are more than their intellect, so I don't believe that it goes against "everything" that makes humans unique.
But that's all part and parcel of the set of beliefs that you are merely asserting, without offering proof. Until you show some kind of evidence that humans are more than their intellects, this is just more circular reasoning based on the same vacuous premises.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BaoQingTian: As Corwin clarified, the 'time-travel' phrase in my example was a tool I used to indicate a vast difference in technological level. Let's just say that these aliens are 20,000 years beyond our current technological level.
How would them showing us 3d holo-images and impressive works that only diety could do any different than showing a caveman a television and demonstrating we can create light with our divine light stick? [emphasis added]
Well, this is not an argument in favor of any deity, as it starts with the assumption that there are things “only deities” can do ( --> so there must be deities), even if you see the technology used to accomplish such things.
My question (the what if scenario) does not necessarily suppose that there is no deity. Just that the aliens come with the kind of proof mentioned in above posts. Would you believe such proof enough to change your beliefs or not? (I restate the question for the record, no need for the ones that have answered to answer it again).
posted
"Human beings are their intellects" seems to me a pretty vacuous premise all on its own. It cannot be proven, it can only be believed.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: And for either question, mere assertion is to descend to the level of the kindergarten bully, who says it's his turn on the swings because he says so and wants to believe it.
But I'm not kicking you off your swing.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: And for either question, mere assertion is to descend to the level of the kindergarten bully, who says it's his turn on the swings because he says so and wants to believe it.
But I'm not kicking you off your swing.
It's an analogy. You are working on the same moral level.
quote:King of Men, for you, proving that "the deity X exists (or not)" is an intellectual (as in scientific) exercise?
It is an assertion about facts. What other apparatus do you suggest we use?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Are you with her primarily for intellectual reasons, emotional reason, some intangible combination of the two?
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: It's an analogy. You are working on the same moral level.
What about the kid who believes it is his swing, but let's other kids swing anyway. Is he also a bully? Or the kid who believes that he should share his swing? Or who believes that it is some other kid's swing. Also bullies?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry to bring this up again, but what about my Stargate analogy?
To remind those who haven't seen it on page 11: let's say some more advanced aliens are playing God with several planets. Those planets are actually reliving bits of our religious history, at different points in it. The "gods" would explain why they consider this interference to be necessary. Would you start to doubt there's a true God?
Posts: 4519 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by suminonA: Facts are interpretable (scietifically and otherwise). Now, what kind of facts are you considering when talking about the existence of a given deity?
There exists a chair in my office. This is an assertion about facts. You can check it by going to my office and having a look.
There exists a deity. This is an assertion about facts. It is a little more difficult to check.
I do not understand why this is difficult.
Edited to add:
quote: BTW, I thought that religion was, by definition, a matter of faith.
A.
Precisely my point : That's what makes it morally repugnant.
quote:What about the kid who believes it is his swing, but lets other kids swing anyway. Is he also a bully? Or the kid who believes that he should share his swing? Or who believes that it is some other kid's swing. Also bullies?
The middle kid is not in the same category as the other two; he is making a moral, not a factual, assertion. The other two are indeed being intellectual bullies, unless they have some reason to believe as they do; which, for the beliefs in question, they generally would.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: You are wrong. Clearly.
Um, kate's post implies - I think - that most people would consider those beliefs wrong for a moral reason. From where you draw your morals, that's your problem.
I see believing in God while not forcing it on others, or hurting someone because of it on a totally different level than Luther's beliefs concerning Jews. Sure, we don't all believe the existence of God to be a truth, and maybe we see it as wrong. But at the same time, we don't know that God doesn't exist is true. I thought trying to find out ways to understand the truth - whatever its form -, and how each of us has reached its own truth are some of the reasons for this thread was created.
So where was she wrong there? I honestly don't understand what you where referring to. If your intention was just to throw her words back at her, well, you haven't earned yourself a talking partner, that's for sure. If not, well, could you please give the reason?
Posts: 4519 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
Short and to the point. Could you explain why? I don't mind if you don't for whatever reasons, but I'm also not helped by your current answer.
Edit: By the way, if you've posted before and I missed it, sorry. I've actually missed most of the thread. I'll read all of it tomorrow before asking more questions like this. Good night, Hatrack. Posts: 4519 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: [QUOTE]What about the kid who believes it is his swing, but lets other kids swing anyway. Is he also a bully? Or the kid who believes that he should share his swing? Or who believes that it is some other kid's swing. Also bullies?
The middle kid is not in the same category as the other two; he is making a moral, not a factual, assertion. The other two are indeed being intellectual bullies, unless they have some reason to believe as they do; which, for the beliefs in question, they generally would.
On what are we basing the middle kid's moral assertion?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm so sick of people saying "Religion is purely a matter of faith." At least acknowledge you are speaking for yourself.
How can people talk so much about faith with the absence of reason when religion does nothing to reinforce this belief. It often speak very authoritively and does not say "But hey this is just one idea."
Sure tons of people say, "There are many ways to heaven, if somebody just tries to be a good person they are fine." But PLENTY of religions totally reject that belief.
Religion is not just about faith, if FACTS were indeed presented that demonstrated the falseness of religion, you would be obligated as a truth seeking individual to reject that which is false. We (we as in those of my religion) expect those who learn our docterine and become assured of its validity to understand that they are condemned if they then reject it.
I liked Mr. Cards' way of saying this:
"The story the oversoul tells me fits all the facts that I see. Your story, in which I'm endlessly deceived, can also explain all those facts. I have no way of knowing that your story is not true-but you have no way of knowing that my story isn't true. So I will choose the one that I love. I will choose the one that, if it's true, makes this reality one worth living in. I'll act as if the life I hope for is real life,and the life that disgusts me-your life, your view of life-is the lie."
Scenarios where scientists prove without a doubt that religion is spurious are to be honest old and pointless.
If God rolled up, we would all be responsible to acknowledge his "Godness" or face expulsion. If science rolls up and truely reveals God's inexistance well ok we are responsible to come to terms with that and understand how the deception perpetuated itself so well, and why we were so thoroughly deceived.
I just don't see what else can be said on the matter. Neither event has happened as yet, and both sides (I believe) have compelling evidence to support their claims.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Without the faith, none of the facts support the same thing. Sure facts can disprove the faith, but people of faith require a much higher level of evidence to disprove what they believe than they do to believe it.
You may feel that you have had some experience that you utilize as proof. However even that experience, unless it can be consistantly reproduced by all, is based on faith in your own interpretation of events.
quote:Sure tons of people say, "There are many ways to heaven, if somebody just tries to be a good person they are fine." But PLENTY of religions totally reject that belief.
I don't understand how the specific attributes of a religion refute the claim that all religion is based on faith.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: On what are we basing the middle kid's moral assertion?
I don't care. He is probably basing it on what his parents told him about being nice; and they in turn are passing on accumulated wisdom about how communities work. But it's not relevant. Moral questions have to be based on some kind of axioms, and you can get those from your inner convictions for all I care. It's when you try asserting things about the state of the Universe, based on nothing but what the little fairies told you, that I get mad.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's when you try asserting things about the state of the Universe, based on nothing but what the little fairies told you, that I get mad.
Perhaps an anger management course would be in order.
Failing that, you might want to try not rewriting what other people say into your tiny little worldview.
BTW, the middle kid you approved - he made a factual assertion , too, it was merely implicit rather than explicit. Perhaps you'd like to take a second look and see if you can spot it. Hint: it's the same factual assertion one of the "bully" kids made.
Looking over the entire conversation, I'm wondering why it's not "bullying" to use name-calling in an attempt to convince people to use your preferred form of reasoning over their own.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
BlackBlade, I don't understand how your OSC quotation applies. You stated beforehand that you believed the evidence for your position was good (I think you're wrong, obviously, but at least your position is not dishonest.) This being so, how are you choosing between equally good hypotheses?
As an aside from that, I think OSC is wrong, in that passage. (Or, if you prefer, the character is wrong.) If two hypotheses are equally good, you cannot choose the one you like better; you have a plain duty to seek out more facts, meanwhile keeping both options open.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:If two hypotheses are equally good, you cannot choose the one you like better; you have a plain duty to seek out more facts, meanwhile keeping both options open.
There's no particular reason to think that those two explanations (let's avoid the term "hypothesis" since it's a term of art in an inapplicable field) are equally good just because both explain the known facts.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree, but that was the assertion made. I'll respond to your other post when I have a little more time.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: I agree, but that was the assertion made. I'll respond to your other post when I have a little more time.
No, it wasn't. The quotation:
quote:"The story the oversoul tells me fits all the facts that I see. Your story, in which I'm endlessly deceived, can also explain all those facts. I have no way of knowing that your story is not true-but you have no way of knowing that my story isn't true. So I will choose the one that I love. I will choose the one that, if it's true, makes this reality one worth living in. I'll act as if the life I hope for is real life,and the life that disgusts me-your life, your view of life-is the lie."
This quotation makes no assertion about whether "those two explanations are equally good." It simply states that both explain the known facts and there is no way to know which is true. That's an entirely different assertion, and your response is exactly what I'm talking about when I accuse you of recasting the words of others into your worldview.
You, it seems, think that the inability to choose one over the other means that they are equally good. Others do not. Therefore, when someone else says that there is no way to select between two explanations, they may or may not be saying that the explanations are equally good.
I think it's manifest that OSC is NOT saying the two explanations are equally good. He's saying one is better than the other based on a criteria unrelated to which is true.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Failing that, you might want to try not rewriting what other people say into your tiny little worldview.
kmb has asserted
a) There is more to the world than we can see b) This is important c) No possible evidence can shake this conviction of hers.
Do you feel that I am mis-representing her statements? If not, then I don't see how my paraphrase is inaccurate.
quote:BTW, the middle kid you approved - he made a factual assertion , too, it was merely implicit rather than explicit. Perhaps you'd like to take a second look and see if you can spot it. Hint: it's the same factual assertion one of the "bully" kids made.
You are referring to the implicit assumption that it's his swing to share or not? Sure. If he is saying that without some factual basis, he's making the same mistake. But that's not the important part of the sentence.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
To answer the original thread and the more recent post on page 11, I found out in my early twenties that I don't need religion in my life, personally - and in fact, that I'm more comfortable without it, as I'd feel like I was lying about something very important if I tried to live as if I were religious.
I don't mind religious displays from others, though, since I was once very religious myself and know how strongly a person can feel about their beliefs, and how intrinsic they can be to their lives.
Posts: 1006 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Fair enough; I completely disagree with that criterion.
I'm just annoyed that somebody who I respect so much apparently thinks my way of life is "disgusting." But everybody's got an opinion, after all! Posts: 1006 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Corwin, pretty much the same answer as the alien question.
O...k...
Open question: What if... What if those aliens at first say that they ARE actually God? How would you tell the difference? Why would you believe them or why wouldn't you? For all you know, God himself could show up; what would it take to believe he's God? Maybe he would say that many have interpreted his words in a wrong way - hence the multitude of different religions -, and none of them has got the truth. What if he gave you new laws, directly? Would you believe him?
Posts: 4519 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: There exists a chair in my office. This is an assertion about facts. You can check it by going to my office and having a look.
There exists a deity. This is an assertion about facts. It is a little more difficult to check.
I do not understand why this is difficult.
The first “fact” is easier to check because, by the definition of a “chair”, it is not impossible to see it if you look directly at it. Yet there are deities that by definition “are everywhere but cannot be seen by those who don’t believe in them”. (Circular definition intended)
Te difficulty of the situation is that you seem not to agree that there are two different kinds of “facts” involved. Logically speaking, each fact has a unique truth value, but considering the definitions of the items they describe, the “checking” involves different kinds of “faith”.
I call the first fact a scientific fact, because it can be analysed scientifically and those who agree with the “scientific method” (call it having faith in the scientific method for example) would come to an agreement about the truth value of this fact. This is the kind of fact that can be generally agreed upon.
I consider the second fact a non-scientific fact, because its truth value depends on faith and not on scientific analysis. At least this is what many theists say. And being a personal thing (the faith), you must consider the person you are talking to. You cannot generalize it because there is no general agreed method for its analysis.
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:BTW, I thought that religion was, by definition, a matter of faith.
A.
Precisely my point : That's what makes it morally repugnant.
As said above in this post, some see the trust in the scientific method as a matter of faith too. But a different kind of faith. Yet it is faith, and if you reject that kind of faith there is no “proof” that could convince you to accept it.(You know, gravity might still not work the same tomorrow!) Doesn’t this make everything morally repugnant?
I myself have complete trust in the scientific method. I also trust my senses (what I see, hear etc) but that would not help me at all in a MATRIX scenario to learn “the TRUTH” (not being NEO, of course).
Open question: What if... What if those aliens at first say that they ARE actually God? How would you tell the difference? Why would you believe them or why wouldn't you? For all you know, God himself could show up; what would it take to believe he's God? Maybe he would say that many have interpreted his words in a wrong way - hence the multitude of different religions -, and none of them has got the truth. What if he gave you new laws, directly? Would you believe him?
Maybe there is no need to say this, but I want to note that this is a completely different question than the one in my what if scenario. I see it very easy to believe/accept a deity that comes saying to all it is a deity (and proving it). Yet the need for religion is measured when people are confronted with “proof” about the deity’s non-existence. Isn’t it?
Open question: What if... What if those aliens at first say that they ARE actually God? How would you tell the difference? Why would you believe them or why wouldn't you? For all you know, God himself could show up; what would it take to believe he's God? Maybe he would say that many have interpreted his words in a wrong way - hence the multitude of different religions -, and none of them has got the truth. What if he gave you new laws, directly? Would you believe him?
Maybe there is no need to say this, but I want to note that this is a completely different question than the one in my what if scenario. I see it very easy to believe/accept a deity that comes saying to all it is a deity (and proving it). Yet the need for religion is measured when people are confronted with “proof” about the deity’s non-existence. Isn’t it?
A.
Yes, it's a different question. But since we can't seem to agree on what would constitute the absence of God, I was trying to figure out the opposite. What would, for you, be proof enough that a certain being is God. The problem is, I wouldn't find it that easy to accept that this being is God. Maybe he's lying. To me, there's always doubt.
And to me, in science there's no "faith", at least not to the point that I believe that what has been "discovered" is fixed forever. I use those theories to predict future events; if something contradicts the theory and I manage to repeat it over and over again until I clearly see that the current theory is wrong, I'll try to figure out a new theory that fits the facts and allows me again to predict new events.
That's what scares me about people who believe in God. That they can hold a belief no. matter. what. Who's to say they can't hold another belief too? Something that could harm others? Something that could harm themselves? Whether by action or inaction. It's like this: a "miracle" is disproven, we don't really need it. "God spoke to X" scenario is just "alien Y spoke to X", we didn't really need God to speak to us. Etc. If so, in the end faith is based on nothing. That is waaaay more frightening than saying your faith is based on scriptures that are God's word communicated to/through people.
Posts: 4519 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Could you explain why? I don't mind if you don't for whatever reasons, but I'm also not helped by your current answer. ![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
But everybody's got an opinion, after all! 
