Do you believe in God?

[Famine]

The only difference is God is spiritually tangible, not physically tangible

Would you like to try that again, only without redefining the word tangible to include intangibility?

 

[huskeR32]

To believe in God requires taught skills in the suspension of disbelief. Not just such as those required to enjoy a James Bond movie, but really serious capabilities to ignore reality.

It requires the creation of a parallel "spiritual" world which has no fixed rules like the actual physical world. Think about that word "spiritual". It has so many meanings. There are so many experiences which may be described as "spiritual" ranging from contemplation of the magnificence of the universe or the proliferation of life on this planet, to watching a sunset or experiencing a superb orgasm. Some restrict it to descriptions of religious experiences.

You do not have to create it, it already exists, and with fixed rules as well.

[citation needed]

 

[GBO Possum]

@SuperCobraJet, in answer to my statement below:-

We can be almost sure that that if SCJ had been born in a Muslim country, he'd have a totally different attitude towards Jesus Christ.​

You replied "possibly". I think we may be getting somewhere.

Had you been born in a Muslim country, to averagely devout Muslim parents, which of the following do you think would be the most probable outcome for your adult belief system?

You would be an averagely devout Muslim yourself
You'd be a Christian
You'd follow some other faith
You'd believe in no God or gods
Some other outcome

I'm just looking for your opinion on likelihood or probability, not a statement of fact.

 

[kennylmao]

Something interesting, not sure if it's posted before.

http://www.scilogs.eu/en/blog/biolo...jan-02-2011-jonathan-leake-full-draft-version

 

[Brutaka]

Something interesting, not sure if it's posted before.

http://www.scilogs.eu/en/blog/biolo...jan-02-2011-jonathan-leake-full-draft-version

With majority of the world's population being religiously inclined, This is not that surprising. Most atheists, agnostic, and other are formed from people's own views so it cannot be measured from the birth rates of religious people. I, for instance, come from a family of about 99% religious, I'm basically the only one who is not. To call Atheism a "dying race" is kinda a stretch as form what I've seen, more people are becoming more open to what they truly believe than ever before.

 

[Imari]

Something interesting, not sure if it's posted before.

http://www.scilogs.eu/en/blog/biolo...jan-02-2011-jonathan-leake-full-draft-version

Interesting, certainly.

There's definitely truth to the statement that for most of recorded history, if you were the wrong religion (or non-religious) in the wrong place then you were likely to get dead in a hurry.

Is the fact that religious communities are designed to eradicate anything that is not themselves a survival trait? Hard to see how it couldn't be.

However, that's in an era where the common forms of culture clash were outright warfare, and the common level of education was staggeringly low. Whether it continues to hold true in a "modern" environment remains to be seen. Arguably the strength of religion with regards to how it has defined communities has declined markedly over the last few hundred years.

I'm not sure how much to make of the increased children per woman numbers from religious families though. Given that not that long ago more or less everyone was religious (at least in name), and yet now we have a significant non-religious component of society. If the author is saying that non-religious people aren't outbreeding religious people, then that means that there's a certain amount of people converting from religious to non-religious. There will be people going the other way too, but there's a net flow towards the non-religious.

Whether that conversion rate can keep up with the breeding rate of the religious, and what other factors may affect it (is there a critical mass that increases it, for example), is unknown. But given that atheism has gone from largely imperceptible in western society to a significant group, I don't think there's any reason to claim that it's dying out. Nor that simplistic Darwinian models are sufficient to explain everything that's going on there.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

@SuperCobraJet

Still awaiting that source for "worldwide legal and official recognition of subjective evidence".

More to the point in reality, can you provide a source for a jurisdictional authority, that does not recognize subjective evidence as evidence?

Along with what makes Christianity unique and why that unique item sets it apart.

Already pointed it out several times.

@SuperCobraJet, in answer to my statement below:-

We can be almost sure that that if SCJ had been born in a Muslim country, he'd have a totally different attitude towards Jesus Christ.​

You replied "possibly". I think we may be getting somewhere.

Had you been born in a Muslim country, to averagely devout Muslim parents, which of the following do you think would be the most probable outcome for your adult belief system?

You would be an averagely devout Muslim yourself
You'd be a Christian
You'd follow some other faith
You'd believe in no God or gods
Some other outcome

I'm just looking for your opinion on likelihood or probability, not a statement of fact.

The probability is, I would likely be Muslim, but its a completely moot point.
Exposure to any taught system, usually will influence a person, and the younger usually the more,
whether it be religious, secular, or otherwise.
However, if available, they maybe personally scrutinized and/or compared at any point as well, and chosen between.
The fact, taught systems exist and vie for attention, does not establish anything necessarily.
As evidenced in this thread, there are many different ones.
If examined from a purely objective standpoint, I do not see anything logically and rationally unique, except in one.

It is blatantly obvious to me, we are imperfect beings.
That being the case, even in science, something imperfect cannot be made perfect without intervention.
To expect imperfection to perfect itself, through the practice of imperfection, is a completely false expectation.
Therein, in my analalysis, is the failing of religions.
Again save for one that provides a different approach.

Would you like to try that again, only without redefining the word tangible to include intangibility?

Perhaps that could use rephrasing.

God is personally perceptable, knowable, spiritually.

 

[Famine]

Perhaps that could use rephrasing.

Ooh, the ironing.

God is personally perceptable, knowable, spiritually.

And intangible.

 

[Liquid]

More to the point in reality, can you [Scaff] provide a source for a jurisdictional authority, that does not recognize subjective evidence as evidence?

NO.

The onus is on you. You have been asked to back a claim, or point of view, up. You either do it or redact your comments about 'subjective' evidence, a term which is a complete oxymoron because the whole point of evidence is that it is objective, disinterested and impartial documentation of facts or events.

You do not tell someone "Prove me wrong". Let's put this on the other foot, shall we?

I think Jimmy Carter is a vile, bigoted murderer and a closet Muslim. I know this to be true. Prove me wrong.

See how ridiculous that is? If I want that claim to be taken seriously I have to be able to present facts and evidence which prove this to be true. I do not ask for someone to prove to me that Jimmy Carter isn't a bigoted Muslim murderer. Let's try another:

My god is real and he exists. (All the other gods totally don't count, btw). I know this to be true. Prove me wrong.

This is exactly what Russell's Teapot and burden of proof, both philosophic and legal, are about. This is something you either fail to understand or do understand and continue to be stubborn about due to being on the back foot.

The funny thing is, nobody here has any problem with the fact that you believe in god. You're perfectly entitled to. But what you are not entitled to is spouting that he's real and that he exists without being able to actually prove it. And that's before we get to @Imari's well written posts dissecting your arrogance about understanding and finding a god.

Swallow your pride and admit you cannot prove what you say to be true.

 

[jtv90069]

More to the point in reality, can you provide a source for a jurisdictional authority, that does not recognize subjective evidence as evidence?

Is there a modern court of Law that disregards objective evidence in favour of subjective testimony?

 

[Scaff]

More to the point in reality, can you provide a source for a jurisdictional authority, that does not recognize subjective evidence as evidence?

Why would I provide a source to back up a claim I have never made. That would be absurd!

Now please back up your claim or retract it.

Already pointed it out several times.

No you have not.

You have made a number of claims, none of which have been unique and you haven't explained why any of them make Christianity stand out aside from 'because I say so)

 

[rono_thomas]

I'm guessing when you take it to the bare bones @SuperCobraJet has his beliefs because he has faith. Many arguments will fall down as this is something that cant be quantified or qualified through statement of fact or presented as a nice round number, or even as physical evidence. But to be a Christian you must have faith, you have to accept this faith and know it to be true.

After reading this thread I find it interesting that the amount of people for this argument/discussion seem to be far less than the number against.

 

[zzz_pt]

I'm guessing when you take it to the bare bones @SuperCobraJet has his beliefs because he has faith. Many arguments will fall down as this is something that cant be quantified or qualified through statement of fact or presented as a nice round number, or even as physical evidence. But to be a Christian you must have faith, you have to accept this faith and know it to be true.

After reading this thread I find it interesting that the amount of people for this argument/discussion seem to be far less than the number against.

Faith and Knowledge are diametrically opposed.

 

[rono_thomas]

Faith and Knowledge are diametrically opposed.

Not yet going to be quoting dictionary meanings as this is my first post here, but thanks for pointing out my mistake and for any future mistakes, but please substitute the word know for believe.👍

 

[Famine]

I'm guessing when you take it to the bare bones @SuperCobraJet has his beliefs because he has faith. Many arguments will fall down as this is something that cant be quantified or qualified through statement of fact or presented as a nice round number, or even as physical evidence.

This wouldn't ordinarily be a problem, if someone wasn't suggesting they actually do have physical evidence for it - by redefining what 'physical' and 'evidence' mean, to suit their agenda.

And 'belief', 'tangible', 'objective' and a whole host of other words redefined to mean the literal opposite of what they actually mean.

 

[rono_thomas]

This wouldn't ordinarily be a problem, if someone wasn't suggesting they actually do have physical evidence for it - by redefining what 'physical' and 'evidence' mean, to suit their agenda.

And 'belief', 'tangible', 'objective' and a whole host of other words redefined to mean the literal opposite of what they actually mean.

Then I've missed something perhaps. What physical evidence is it that @SuperCobraJet has claimed he has?
And just to clarify I've not redefined the word believe, this can incorporate something which is both tangible or intangible, subjective or objective, real or not. Whether a belief is true or false has to be determined from a personal perspective.

 

[Liquid]

Whether a belief is true or false has to be determined from a personal perspective.

No, it is determined by science, knowledge and evidence. Otherwise, it is just a belief and nothing more.

 

[rono_thomas]

Belief: An acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof: Oxford Dictionary

 

[zzz_pt]

Then I've missed something perhaps. What physical evidence is it that @SuperCobraJet has claimed he has?
And just to clarify I've not redefined the word believe, this can incorporate something which is both tangible or intangible, subjective or objective, real or not. Whether a belief is true or false has to be determined from a personal perspective.

If a belief is true, it's knowlegde. If a belief is based on faith, it's not known.

The truth of a belief is determined by the evidence and facts that support it.

As Hume said:
“In our reasonings concerning matter of fact, there are all imaginable degrees of assurance, from the highest certainty to the lowest species of moral evidence. A wise man, therefore, proportions his belief to the evidence.”

Theistic [supernatural] claims have zero evidence to support it.

 

[Famine]

Then I've missed something perhaps.

With 15,740 posts in the way, that's excusable

What physical evidence is it that @SuperCobraJet has claimed he has?

That seems to be the $6m question. He says he has proof, but no-one who doesn't believe can see it.

And just to clarify I've not redefined the word believe

Indeed not. However, it's been part of @SuperCobraJet's tricks for a couple of years now. It's as a result of this that no-one's any better off for his input thus far.

 

[rono_thomas]

If a belief is true, it's knowlegde. If a belief is based on faith, it's not known.

The truth of a belief is determined by the evidence and facts that support it.

As Hume said:
“In our reasonings concerning matter of fact, there are all imaginable degrees of assurance, from the highest certainty to the lowest species of moral evidence. A wise man, therefore, proportions his belief to the evidence.”

Theistic claims have zero evidence to support it.

There is nothing here that I can deny nor argue against, but I understand that the bible reads, that there will come a time when this fact or evidence that is needed by most to believe will be available, for now though it has to be enough that you have faith enough to believe, as this time may not come in your lifetime.

I can only write it that it is much like early man believing that the world was flat and not round, it needed faith for it to be believed that you weren't going to fall over the edge for the truth to be discovered. (unfortunately my facts are less then to be desired and I only use this as an example).

 

[zzz_pt]

@rono_thomas

Yes. The problem is when people start to make absolute claims about the world, afterlife, science, morality, eternal punishment, way of living our lives, policy, etc based on a belief backed up only by faith.

I don't have problems with people who belief in a god or gods. I have problems when they start to make unsopported claims of absolute truth.

Should be quite easy for a believer to test his/her faith. He/she could just out point the problems of other religions and their claims and then aplly the same method to his own religion.

We can know if we are reasonable if we avoid speacial pleading.

 

[rono_thomas]

Then knowing that I could not provide you with an absolute truth in the form that you seek it, I would be unable to convert you to a believer in God?

Would it be ok to argue that perhaps @SuperCobraJet has had a real life experience, maybe an answered prayer for example, for himself to have this "physical evidence" from where his belief stems from? Again I think that the bible writes it in such a way that you will know God only after you have accepted God on faith alone and truly believe, and so if this might be the case then wouldn't he form his belief from this foundation thus leading to his claim of his Christian God being the one true God?

I'm curious to know if there are teachings within the bible that you agree with and practise with the way you live daily lives?

(Please remember I'm playing Devils Advocate here, no pun intended).

 

[Famine]

There is nothing here that I can deny nor argue against, but I understand that the bible reads, that there will come a time when this fact or evidence that is needed by most to believe will be available, for now though it has to be enough that you have faith enough to believe, as this time may not come in your lifetime.

I can only write it that it is much like early man believing that the world was flat and not round, it needed faith for it to be believed that you weren't going to fall over the edge for the truth to be discovered. (unfortunately my facts are less then to be desired and I only use this as an example).

Aside from the fact we've known the Earth to be spherical for several thousand years, what you demonstrate here is a testable axiom. "The Earth is flat" can be objectively tested, because it can be falsified - you can construct a test to prove it to be false.

Deities - specifically deities that are described in their own holy and inerrant works to be intangible and without a limitation of power - cannot be falsified and so they cannot be objectively tested.

Why is this a problem? Well, everything we know has been objectively tested - and I mean everything. Literally the entire summation of your existence at present is only possible through falsification and objective testing, even down to the food you eat. We call this system of entirely bias-free testing "the scientific method" and this literally translates to "the knowledge-getting method" - it doesn't necessarily mean labcoats and test tubes, though this is how the scientific method is conducted for a large proportion of biological, chemical and medical discovery.

Hang about though, because there's loads of things, particularly in the outer reaches of science, that we don't know. Well, yes, there's a whole host of things that we don't know yet because, although they can be falsified, we don't have the ability to objectively test them yet. This happens surprisingly often - remember the Higgs Boson? That was first theorised* in the mid-1960s, but we were absolutely incapable of generating the kind of power required to perform the test to discover if it wasn't real. It was testable, we just couldn't do it yet. Fastforward 50 years and we did.

Why does God differ from Higgs? Higgs was falsifiable and God is not. There is no test that can be constructed to objectively test the existence of an invisible, intangible, extradimensional being with limitless power - that's not necessarily the case for deities not defined as such, though I'd question what makes them deities rather than just more advanced beings - and that means that God, as defined by the Bible, cannot be known.


That's fine though - indeed it's where belief comes in. Anyone can believe in anything that is untestable - in fact you can only believe in things that are untestable. But if someone is going to claim this deity actually exists, they need to present an objective test. If they're going to claim you have proof, they need to present the proof as obtained through an objective test. If they can't, the claim shouldn't be made.

That notwithstanding, it's borderline insulting to both faith and knowledge to suggest that, on the strength of an historical work of dubious veracity, a deity in which one believes should inherit the status of fact without question, particularly as every other fact has been questioned over and over again until it was robust enough to survive any question and the notion that there's other deities that make the same claim to the point of mutual exclusivity. As the saying goes, once the religious understand why they reject all other gods but their own, they will understand why the non-religious reject theirs too.


*Theory being a specific scientific term meaning "An explanation for all known facts, laws and observations". The Higgs field theory explains observed interaction of fundamental particles. The confirmation of the theory adds data to the Standard Model, itself a theory explaining the interactions of subatomic particles.

 

[Imari]

I can only write it that it is much like early man believing that the world was flat and not round, it needed faith for it to be believed that you weren't going to fall over the edge for the truth to be discovered. (unfortunately my facts are less then to be desired and I only use this as an example).

People need to stop using this as an example. You're not the first, and you're unlikely to be the last.

For one, people have known that the earth was round for a long, long, long time. The diameter has been known to within a remarkably small number for thousands of years.
For two, anyone with any sense in their head never thought they were going to fall off the edge. Humans are endowed with eyes to see edges, and legs to walk away from them.

There was no faith involved. People treated it as flat as a heuristic which to this day works pretty well for most things. There was no need to believe in anything, because they could see how the world worked right in front of them.

When flaws in that model became apparent, people came up with the round earth theory, which is actually fairly accurate and easily observable in a number of everyday situations if you know what you're looking for. (For example, watch anything go over the horizon. It disappears bottom first, even on demonstrably flat surfaces. Boats are good for this.)

Again, no belief necessary, you can go out and test any of the claims made by the "round earth theory" for yourself. And even that's not strictly accurate, the earth is not perfectly round, although that's not terribly relevant to most people.


TL;DR: Scientifically observable and verifiable theories are not a good comparison to blind faith. The flat earth was a reasonable theory in it's time, although it has not been considered a viable description of reality by educated people for much longer than most people think.

Edit: Damn, tree'd by Famine.

 

[zzz_pt]

Then knowing that I could not provide you with an absolute truth in the form that you seek it, I would be unable to convert you to a believer in God?

Would it be ok to argue that perhaps @SuperCobraJet has had a real life experience, maybe an answered prayer for example, for himself to have this "physical evidence" from where his belief stems from? Again I think that the bible writes it in such a way that you will know God only after you have accepted God on faith alone and truly believe, and so if this might be the case then wouldn't he form his belief from this foundation thus leading to his claim of his Christian God being the one true God?

I'm curious to know if there are teachings within the bible that you agree with and practise with the way you live daily lives?

(Please remember I'm playing Devils Advocate here, no pun intended).

We don't know if there's such a thing as absolute truth. We may never know.

For someone to be able to "convert me" to a believer, first he has to prove me his claims with something behond personal experiences or books. Then, I could believe the god of the bible, for example, exists. But after that, I wouldn't follow it. Because the god of the bible is immoral.

Maybe a perfect and moral god exists. But it's not the judeo-christian god.

2. Real life experiences happen all the time. An answer prayer? This is a claim. He shoud prove it. It should be testable. A lot of things happen in our lifes. People pray for a ton of things. Yet, 99.9% of the time nothing happens. But when something quite ordinary hapens, they claim "god answered my prayer".

Prayer doesn't even make sense... see this

3. which teachings? I see some things in the bible that are good but were present in previous societies.

 

[rono_thomas]

I have an argument for this yet not the time to write it so hopefully tonight this will become more interesting, but again I think you've missed my point with the world is round theory and your looking at it from modern mans perspective with all our scientific knowledge and knowhow. I only meant to illustrate that there are plenty of scientific facts, known now because of our advancement, that were based on a faith to previous "ignorant" man (using ignorant lightly). Just how the Sun's rise and fall became known to happen because of how our planets orbit each other....

later tonight....

 

[GBO Possum]

I have an argument for this yet not the time to write it so hopefully tonight this will become more interesting, but again I think you've missed my point with the world is round theory and your looking at it from modern mans perspective with all our scientific knowledge and knowhow. I only meant to illustrate that there are plenty of scientific facts, known now because of our advancement, that were based on a faith to previous "ignorant" man (using ignorant lightly). Just how the Sun's rise and fall became known to happen because of how our planets orbit each other....

later tonight....

Maybe where you use the word "faith", "hypothesis" would be more appropriate.

On a second point, why do you ask if the bible contains useful teachings in day to day life?

Which teaching should I choose? Thou shalt not kill? Or, that people who work on the Sabbath should be killed?

My point is that if you cherry pick the bible, you can find "good" stuff and "bad" stuff. You can find justification for extremism, or justification for being a nice person. Personally, I have never needed the bible to tell me how to be a nice person.

 

[Famine]

I have an argument for this yet not the time to write it so hopefully tonight this will become more interesting, but again I think you've missed my point with the world is round theory and your looking at it from modern mans perspective with all our scientific knowledge and knowhow. I only meant to illustrate that there are plenty of scientific facts, known now because of our advancement, that were based on a faith to previous "ignorant" man (using ignorant lightly).

And all of those facts were acquired the same way - falsify, objective test, lather, rinse, repeat. A lot of the time we even falsify and design a test that we can't do yet, because we will be able to do it later. The reason we'll be able to do it later is because we can acquire more facts and more knowledge through the same methods - rather than accepting belief with equal weighting - and eventually be advanced enough to do the test.


The purpose of my post was to remind that, according to the Bible's description, this cannot be done with God and thus this knowledge cannot ever be acquired - leaving only faith.

This isn't a bad thing, just a reminder that the two shouldn't be mixed as if they're the same thing.

 

[kennylmao]

However, that's in an era where the common forms of culture clash were outright warfare, and the common level of education was staggeringly low. Whether it continues to hold true in a "modern" environment remains to be seen. Arguably the strength of religion with regards to how it has defined communities has declined markedly over the last few hundred years.

Oh I think we have a perfect set up to test that in the form of Europe in the coming generations. The outcome will be very interesting and possibly a little depressing, depending on one's views.

I'm not sure how much to make of the increased children per woman numbers from religious families though. Given that not that long ago more or less everyone was religious (at least in name), and yet now we have a significant non-religious component of society. If the author is saying that non-religious people aren't outbreeding religious people, then that means that there's a certain amount of people converting from religious to non-religious. There will be people going the other way too, but there's a net flow towards the non-religious.

Whether that conversion rate can keep up with the breeding rate of the religious, and what other factors may affect it (is there a critical mass that increases it, for example), is unknown. But given that atheism has gone from largely imperceptible in western society to a significant group, I don't think there's any reason to claim that it's dying out. Nor that simplistic Darwinian models are sufficient to explain everything that's going on there.

You have a point, atheists mostly gain numbers from defectors of religion, which usually happens when a society experiences modernization and an increase in wealth.

This got me thinking, if religious people produces more children, modernization creating unreligious people, and unreligious people producing less children. Will a completely modernized world (utopian worldview) lead the human race to extinction?

Governments need to have a law for citizens to have at least 2 children, I think, if a modern atheistic society were to maintain it's existence.