Faith is not "without evidence" argument

[ZenMode]

The "god of the Bible" is a cartoon. I am not talking about the god of the Bible. I am talking about gods...in response to something you said about "imaginary beings." And I have described what I mean by gods.




"Men who, in that period of time and before, witnessed a world which they had no ability to scientifically explain. Men who killed and buried animals under buildings hoping to appease celestial beings and bring good luck. Their writings are the only current "evidence"."

Correct.



I do not care whether you believe in any gods or not. I DO NOT BELIEVE IN ANY GODS. I DO NOT BELIEVE ANY GODS EXIST.

I also do not believe there are no gods.

But you mentioned gods as imaginary beings. And I asked a question about that statement.

I am hoping you answer it at some point.




I am a non-believer. I do not "believe" any gods exist...and I do not "believe" there are no gods."

You, on the other hand, seem to be a believer. You seem to believe there are no gods.

So...I ask again...using other words:

So you see that your "belief" that the notion of gods is only about "imaginary beings"...is nothing more than a blind guess? Sorta like the blind guess theists make...except in the opposite direction?

My belief is based on what I currently know to be true and currently there is no reason to believe gods exist, so they are, for practical reasons, imaginary beings. That doesn't mean things couldn't change but, right now, there is no reason to believe gods exist.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Actually these things you list are merely HYPOTHESES, no one necessarily says that the multiverse is ipso facto true or that string theory is ipso facto true. The same CANNOT be said for believers in God. They claim it IS TRUE.

there are many here who believe "there is no god" as firmly as I believe there is.......in fact, I believe you have stated it as if it IS TRUE......

 

[ZenMode]

According to you. LOL

Why are you bent out of shape by BP's comment? She constantly calls me names. So what?

Yes, I can, just like you just did.

According to me? Even if I never took the time to track down his name, do you need a historian to tell you that it's beneficial to have a skill when you are out in the world?

Let's say you have two high school graduates who are twin brothers. After high school, one of them spends the next two years playing Fortnite while the other one is going to a trade school to learn how to weld.

Do you need an economist to tell you which one is more likely to find a good job when their parents kick them out?

Pointing out that you and BP both call names doesn't mean it bothers me. I'm just pointing it out to support my point about attacking people for no reason.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

In reality "atheism" IS the default position. .

obviously the default position would be "I have no opinion".......you do not begin with "there is no god"......

 

[Dutch Uncle]

According to me? Even if I never took the time to track down his name, do you need a historian to tell you that it's beneficial to have a skill when you are out in the world?

Let's say you have two high school graduates who are twin brothers. After high school, one of them spends the next two years playing Fortnite while the other one is going to a trade school to learn how to weld.

Do you need an economist to tell you which one is more likely to find a good job when their parents kick them out?

Pointing out that you and BP both call names doesn't mean it bothers me. I'm just pointing it out to support my point about attacking people for no reason.

Like the concentration camp scenario, there are benefits. Why only speak of the benefits and not the balance? Why did you run from my question about living in the wild but free vs. being a slave in the world's most technological country?

Now you are comparing kids to slaves. Got it.

You're a RWNJ hiding behind a username. The more you post, the more you reveal about yourself.

 

[Ross Dolan]

No, you misunderstood. I said they apply the same reasoning to everything in their lives. THe example I gave explained that. Sorry you didn't quite catch the point.

There was no point to catch.

I am a non-religious person...and I most assuredly do not apply atheistic reasoning (which I consider flawed) to everything in my life.

I live my life as though I do not know if there are gods or not...mostly because I do not know if there are any gods or not.

I am willing to discuss this, but I have to know what you actually are stating. And in order for that to happen, you cannot use the word "atheist" to explain anything, because the word is so ill defined, almost every person who uses it goes on to explain if they are strong atheists, weak atheists, explicit atheist, implicit atheists, or whatever the hell kind of atheist.

Explain to me your position on the question, "Do any gods exist?"

I am not interested in what you "believe" or "not believe." I am interested in your position.

Here is mine. Perhaps it would be of help if you could tell me what you disagree with about it:


I do not know if any GOD (or gods) exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect that gods cannot exist…that the existence of a GOD or gods is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that at least one GOD must exist...that the existence of at least one GOD is needed to explain existence;
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction on whether any gods exist or not...so I don't.

(When I use the word "GOD or gods" here, I mean "The entity (or entities) responsible for the creation of what we humans call 'the physical universe'...IF SUCH AN ENTITY OR ENTITIES ACTUALLY EXIST.)

 

[Ross Dolan]

My belief is based on what I currently know to be true and currently there is no reason to believe gods exist, so they are, for practical reasons, imaginary beings. That doesn't mean things couldn't change but, right now, there is no reason to believe gods exist.

There also is no reason to "believe" that there are no gods (or that it is much more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one), but you seem to have no trouble doing that.

Why?

 

[ZenMode]

There also is no reason to "believe" that there are no gods (or that it is much more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one), but you seem to have no trouble doing that.

Why?

The level to which you believe something is based on evidence. I believe the sun is real. I believe gravity is real. I believe, as I'm typing this, my lungs are converting oxygen to carbon dioxide. I believe all of those things with more or less equal certainty.

When you compare the evidence for the existence of the sun, gravity and lung function to the evidence for God's, they are on opposite ends of the belief spectrum, right?

 

[ZenMode]

Like the concentration camp scenario, there are benefits. Why only speak of the benefits and not the balance? Why did you run from my question about living in the wild but free vs. being a slave in the world's most technological country?

Now you are comparing kids to slaves. Got it.

You're a RWNJ hiding behind a username. The more you post, the more you reveal about yourself.

The ability to read was, for obvious reasons, very rare among slaves. However, some slaves (generally female) who were responsible for much of the care of the master's children, were taught how to read and write to be able to then teach the master's children.

Yes or no, would that slave, who was able to read and write, have an advantage when freed?

 

[Ross Dolan]

The level to which you believe something is based on evidence. I believe the sun is real. I believe gravity is real. I believe, as I'm typing this, my lungs are converting oxygen to carbon dioxide. I believe all of those things with more or less equal certainty.

When you compare the evidence for the existence of the sun, gravity and lung function to the evidence for God's, they are on opposite ends of the belief spectrum, right?

There is a difference between gods and God's. In order to answer your question, I must know if you realize that difference...and if your wording was intended or just an accident.

Please.

 

[Cypress]

1. Most scientist criticize the "multiverse" as unscientific for the very reason you mention. If you're arguing that climate science is in the same category, then you're an idiot.

You clearly insinuated in the OP that the only ideas that count are those that have tangible evidence.

Many scientists are at least open to, if not accept the possibility of things for which there is no tangible evidence. I gave a list and could keep adding to it. Nobody has ruled out a multiverse or the Many Worlds hypothesis.

Speculation and clever ideas are a lifeblood of science.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

The ability to read was, for obvious reasons, very rare among slaves. However, some slaves (generally female) who were responsible for much of the care of the master's children, were taught how to read and write to be able to then teach the master's children.

Yes or no, would that slave, who was able to read and write, have an advantage when freed?

Again, so was learning a skill in a Third Reich "work camp".

Yes. What percentage of slaves learned to read and what percentage were able to get a good job using the skills their Massa' taught them? I'd like to see your data.

 

[Ross Dolan]

No, you misunderstood. I said they apply the same reasoning to everything in their lives. THe example I gave explained that. Sorry you didn't quite catch the point.

Please add to my last comment:

The word “know” has serious philosophical and scientific implications, but I think in a discussion here, we can use the word in a way that avoids those implications.

I can reasonably say that I know my name is Frank; I know I was born on August 9th ; I know I am typing on a keyboard in my home office; I know the capital of France is Paris; I know the capital of England is London.

Are you comfortable with comments here that make the distinction between “knowing” in the philosophical and scientific sense…and that common sense approach to the word?

The reason for my asking that is that I suspect that you actually mean…

…I know* the sun is real, I know gravity is real, I know my lungs use and change oxygen in various ways.

*Know in the sense I described above.

If I am wrong, I have to deal with your question differently.

By the way, if you do mean to make a distinction between even the modified use of “know” and “believe”…I do not find that strange or inappropriate. A reasonable case can be made for either. I just want to be sure of which it is for this discussion.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

There is a difference between gods and God's. In order to answer your question, I must know if you realize that difference...and if your wording was intended or just an accident.

Please.

I'm curious if you'll be given a clear, concise and straightforward answer instead of babbling bullshit.

 

[ZenMode]

Again, so was learning a skill in a Third Reich "work camp".

Yes. What percentage of slaves learned to read and what percentage were able to get a good job using the skills their Massa' taught them? I'd like to see your data.

The percentage is irrelevant, as are your comparisons. Is it or is it not true that learning to read is better than not learning to read, even if that learning is under horrible conditions?

 

[Damocles]

It could have been a matter of parents overhearing and getting the pony. Same thing as asking Santa for a pony.

This would not be evidence of absence of this God, only of a "how" this minor miracle was brought about. We hear that this God works in mysterious ways, we could not prove that their God didn't ensure the parent overheard and thus through his action He made sure they got a pony.

 

[Ross Dolan]

I'm curious if you'll be given a clear, concise and straightforward answer instead of babbling bullshit.

I think I will.

We'll see.

I've added a bit more to my question. See above.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

The percentage is irrelevant, as are your comparisons. Is it or is it not true that learning to read is better than not learning to read, even if that learning is under horrible conditions?

Disagreed, but thanks for confirming you don't know and/or don't care. You are simply pushing your unsubstantiated opinion that slaves benefited from their enslavement.

 

[BidenPresident]

Learn to read. I said they are not. None of them, except the ones I identify as guesses, are.

Another blind guess from you.

 

[ZenMode]

Disagreed, but thanks for confirming you don't know and/or don't care. You are simply pushing your unsubstantiated opinion that slaves benefited from their enslavement.

I'm am saying some slaves learned skills that benefitted them when freed. What part of that claim do you disagree with?