Religion Poll

[Mott the Hoople]

this is a false dichotomy. This does not make both ethos comparable in any way. There is a far greater likelihood that god doesn't exist, and that our natural world can be explained by science and physical laws, as has been done again and again throughout modern history. One holds falsifable beliefs, the other rejects such belief systems.

Otherwise you could say invisible unicorns dance around your room every night, and pretend that is just another sane, completely rational and equal belief as any other. I mean... you can't disprove​ it now, can you?

The only false dichotomy here is your trying to prove the metaphysical by the standards of the physical. That's like Intelligent Design in reverse....and just as illogical.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

The burden of proof is on those who make a positive claim.

Correct me if I'm wrong here.....but doesn't proving the existence of God kinda defeat the purpose of faith?

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Religious faith isn't provable.

That's correct and trying to "prove" it or asking for "proof" of faith....is down right irrational. To paraphrase what I said earlier, faith has as much use for "proof" as a race car does for a speed limit.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

..yeah, that's my point.

Atheism isn't a belief. It's a rejection of belief in a deity.

Good lord Grind. That's an oxymoron. If you reject a belief, it's because you believe in something else. Atheism is a belief and to argue otherwise is just plain ignorant.

 

[Phantasmal]

Jesus Grind! Faith and logic have about as much use for each other as a race car has for a speed limit. What a stupid question!

Christ I'm telling you, the only thing worse than a reformed Catholic is a reformed smoker!

Yikes, they come pretty close though.

 

[Phantasmal]

What is your definition of faith?

Believing in something you hope?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

There is a far greater likelihood that god doesn't exist, and that our natural world can be explained by science and physical laws, as has been done again and again throughout modern history.

Now, hold on a sec... Exactly HOW is "likelihood" being determined here? "Can be explained?" What the hell is that supposed to mean? Can science explain why lightning and electricity have the properties they have? I'm not talking about a technical explanation of how electricity works, but WHY? Does science know this? What about gravity? Does science know why gravity exists? Do our physical laws explain black holes and dark energy? Finally, does science have an explanation for what happened immediately before the Big Bang?

What we have is science and physics which can offer possible explanations for some things, but other things remain a complete mystery. Science doesn't conclude things, but you make the common mistake of assuming it does. You accept scientific theories as FACTS, which you determine MUST be irrefutable. The problem with this is the long history of science proving itself wrong. We can take Darwin's theory of how things evolve, and we can extend that theory beyond what was stated by Darwin, to argue that origin of life was the result of this same evolution process, but science really doesn't have a basis to support this idea. We can choose to have FAITH and believe that evolution must somehow explain our origin, but science and physics simply don't prove this.

And.... Even IF it can ALL be "explained by science" as you put it, how does that automatically disqualify God as an explanation? Do you not think an omnipotent God could have created science and physics? Again, you assume Science vs. God, and there is nothing I find in science which disproves God. In other words, science and physics could be absolutely correct and conclusive on virtually everything, and God still exist. One does not negate the other.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Yikes, they come pretty close though.

LOL That they do!

 

[Mott the Hoople]

What is your definition of faith?

Believing in something you hope?

That depends on the context. In most context it is a trust or confidence in someone or something. In the religious or philosophical context it means, to me, a belief in God, a Deity or Religion based upon ones spiritual feelings and not proof.

 

[Banned]

Good lord Grind. That's an oxymoron. If you reject a belief, it's because you believe in something else. Atheism is a belief and to argue otherwise is just plain ignorant.

but you mean to not believe in something is a belief?

 

[Timshel]

An atheist doesn't claim that no God exists. They simply do not accept the theists claim that a God exists.

There is plenty of proof against the various defined Gods and none for them. The claim that atheism and theism are both based on faith is just a bunch of nonsense.

 

[Banned]

So not believing in the tooth fairy is a belief?

 

[Timshel]

So not believing in the tooth fairy is a belief?

More than that, it is faith.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

An atheist doesn't claim that no God exists. They simply do not accept the theists claim that a God exists.

There is plenty of proof against the various defined Gods and none for them. The claim that atheism and theism are both based on faith is just a bunch of nonsense.

Physical proof? For a spiritual entity? How could that possibly be? How can physical science offer any kind of proof regarding an entity that is not physical in nature? The fact that you find no physical proof of God is as useful as the fact that spirituality isn't physical. It is as foolish a statement as a religious zealot proclaiming science offers no spiritual proof, therefore it is bunk! Science isn't supposed to provide spiritual proof, it's not expected to. So how can it be expected to refute spiritual entities? And how is this ever accomplished with physical proof?

FAITH is the belief in something regardless of proof. Virtually anything your mind can imagine, has a theoretical probability, according to Dr. Michio Kaku. In other words, nothing is impossible. And nothing has to conform to principles of science and physics as we currently know them. This another area where human arrogance sometimes perverts science to its own fault. We presume that science and physics as we understand them, is all there is to know or understand, and nothing else could ever possibly challenge those principles, but the fact of the matter is, those principles have been challenged, and many of those principles have required alteration and adaptation, as we've discovered new things we didn't previously know. This is why science and physics don't conclude or prove things, instead we have theories of probability. To convert theories of probability into indisputable fact, requires FAITH.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

but you mean to not believe in something is a belief?

Yes, just as when you decide not to choose you have still made a choice.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

An atheist doesn't claim that no God exists. They simply do not accept the theists claim that a God exists.

There is plenty of proof against the various defined Gods and none for them. The claim that atheism and theism are both based on faith is just a bunch of nonsense.

I didn't say that. I said atheism was a belief.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

So not believing in the tooth fairy is a belief?

Yes.

 

[Banned]

Yes, just as when you decide not to choose you have still made a choice.

so apathy is a belief then.

 

[Timshel]

I didn't say that. I said atheism was a belief.

It's a belief on the defined Gods. We don't believe in any of them. Only faith or sheer stupidity can support belief in such nonsense.

For instance, the Judeo/Christian depiction of God can be easily disproven and has been for over 2000 years.

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
- Epicurus [341–270 B.C.]

 

[Phantasmal]

It's a belief on the defined Gods. We don't believe in any of them. Only faith or sheer stupidity can support belief in such nonsense.

For instance, the Judeo/Christian depiction of God can be easily disproven and has been for over 2000 years.

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
- Epicurus [341–270 B.C.]

I like that quote.