| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/20/2007 03:28:12 PM · #476 |
Originally posted by zxaar:
Tomorrow if I start to believe in something and claim that since you guys can not provide any proof that what i am imagining does not exist , i am right. |
That's the principle behind the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Originally posted by zxaar:
It is not a duty of scientist to provide physical evidence of non-existence of anything you or someone wants to believe. If you or someone claims that God exists, then please prove it, by providing some physical evidence. |
No need to prove anything. You're entitled to believe whatever you want. Just don't question scientific method if you aren't willing to hold competing proposals to the same standard. |
|
|
|
11/20/2007 03:33:18 PM · #477 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Okay. I understand what you're saying here, but I was hoping that you would play along for the sake of argument. :) Then let's say that your faith in the existence of a Creator was shaken and tomorrow you awoke an atheist. :) What effect would that have on the meaning of your life? Other than perhaps an increased fear of dying, how would it change your life? |
That's called a "crisis of faith" and it happens a lot. I have been through it myself. I felt a little bit empty, but not that much so since my faith had not been very strong anyway. Eventually I found my way back to a much stronger faith. And I feel more complete for having it.
The details are not, IMO, appropriate for here; it's a private matter. And I'm not here, in any case, to try convince others to believe; I just am trying to help persuade *some* others not to persist in holding on to the unfair assumption that one is somehow "flawed" for having faith.
R.
|
|
|
|
11/20/2007 03:35:15 PM · #478 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Elementary logic (pure reason) tells us we *cannot* prove a negative. |
I agree with your post, except for this part. Sometimes you can prove a negative. As noted earlier, some cultures believed the earth was supported by a giant turtle (or other large object), and we've proven that it's not. |
|
|
|
11/20/2007 03:43:44 PM · #479 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Then let's discuss the concept of "love", why don't we? There are many who believe that "love" is nothing more than biochemistry in action, that it is pheromonic in nature. |
Love is simply biology overruling reason. |
Well, yeah, that's easy to say, but people BELIEVE in love. Some of them do anyway :-) They will deny that it is just biology, they will attach higher levels of meaning to it. And THAT is "faith".
R. |
Emotions are not the same as faith. Sorry. |
|
|
|
11/20/2007 03:45:35 PM · #480 |
This:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Of course, most believers aren't that extreme, and atrocities have certainly been committed in the name of science, but even then, they're generally at the expense of people considered inferior by scientists' culture or belief system rather than any scientific principle. |
...is what I was saying here:
Originally posted by EducatedSavage:
Religion and science have little relevence in regards to whether one acts counter to popularly accepted norms. |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Popularly accepted norms are often defined by the prevailing religion. Don't think so? Try renting a car in Saudi Arabia. Oh, and wear shorts because it's really hot there. ;-) |
Cultural beliefs are often based on whatever religion is most prevalent at the time. In America, we have Christianity. Mind you, the Bible implies hearing voices is okay, and psychology tells us it's probably really not, so, like most things, we can use that as a generality but we really shouldn't attribute it to one and only cause.
:P Besides, try to be me and rent a car and wear shorts here! Until a couple years ago, I wasn't allowed to rent a car and I'd still be looked down on for wearing shorts - I'm a pasty white and I've got a little extra meat. ;)
It should also be kept in mind that it is science's function is to disprove things rather than prove them - we haven't proven gravity, we just can't manage to disprove it. And logic... well, it's such an understudied subject that it is far too often employed inexpertly. Just sayin'.
Message edited by author 2007-11-20 15:49:58. |
|
|
|
11/20/2007 03:48:09 PM · #481 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Elementary logic (pure reason) tells us we *cannot* prove a negative. |
I agree with your post, except for this part. Sometimes you can prove a negative. As noted earlier, some cultures believed the earth was supported by a giant turtle (or other large object), and we've proven that it's not. |
Sorry. As always, I am oversimplifying. There are many different kinds of proofs. Nevertheless, consider (for one example) the issue of UFOs, alien spacecraft. Would you say that since they have never been "proven" to have visited us (assuming you believe that) they do not exist, or that they have never visited us? What about "living fossils"? It's not all that long ago that scientists overwhelmingly believed they did not exist; then we dragged a Coelcanth out of the South American abyss.
It's not as simple as you make it out to be, and there's no reason it *has* to be, either. It's absolutely OK to have faith in a Supreme Being. It may not be your cuppa', but it's nevertheless conceivable and it has *not* been disproven.
R.
|
|
|
|
11/20/2007 04:25:50 PM · #482 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by zxaar:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
If there were physical evidence against the existence of God, then what you are saying might begin to make sense; but there is not.
|
This is not a good argument. Tomorrow if I start to believe in something and claim that since you guys can not provide any proof that what i am imagining does not exist , i am right.
The burden of proving should be on believer not on the one who questions it.
It is not a duty of scientist to provide physical evidence of non-existence of anything you or someone wants to believe. If you or someone claims that God exists, then please prove it, by providing some physical evidence. |
You are correct that it is not science's job to disprove what I believe. And indeed, science cannot possibly do that. Elementary logic (pure reason) tells us we *cannot* prove a negative. We cannot "prove" that there are no pink cows in nature; all we can prove is that science has never studied one.
Nevertheless, it is likewise not *required* that I prove my beliefs to you, unless and until they create a measurable and meaningful conflict between us.
In other words, that I believe in God is not an actionable thing, I am free to believe whatever I want and you are free to *not* believe it, and that is as it should be. If it gets to the point where I believe that MY God is denying YOU the right to believe whatever you do, and if I act in His name to deny you that right, THEN we have a problem.
Admittedly, this situation does arise, and with appalling frequency. But that's not an indictment of belief per se, it's an indictment of an individual, or many individuals, or a group of believers who share that attitude, whatever. Plenty of atrocities have been committed on this earth by those who felt they were acting dispassionately and rationally, and religion played no part in them.
R. |
I understand your point, but there is a reason why I said it is not scientists duty to provide proof for non-existence.
As long as someone belives something, he does not have to prove it to anybody.
BUT, as soon as this someone tries to pass his belief as the truth, he needs to prove it.
This is the crux of this whole discussion between  scalvert and  ronB. Because when you claim whatever written in blible actually happened, then you should back up with some proof. (here 'you' is people in general).
(And beyond this thread,) what creationists are trying to do it is to slip creationism into science books as alternative explaination to life or our world. Which ought to give them authenticity. This is where the burden of proof comes. Because placing it in science books will make people to believe it as truth.
I have nothing against who believes in God or Dog, I only fear about passing untested beliefs as truth to our children.
Message edited by author 2007-11-20 16:27:24. |
|
|
|
11/20/2007 04:30:01 PM · #483 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
There are many different kinds of proofs. Nevertheless, consider (for one example) the issue of UFOs, alien spacecraft. Would you say that since they have never been "proven" to have visited us (assuming you believe that) they do not exist, or that they have never visited us? What about "living fossils"? It's not all that long ago that scientists overwhelmingly believed they did not exist; then we dragged a Coelcanth out of the South American abyss. |
Hehe... I used to debate UFOs in a forum similar to this one. Basically, it would depend upon your standard of proof. Scientists have never claimed that living fossils don't exist. After all, we have sharks, dragonflies, armadillos and crocodiles |
|
|
|
11/20/2007 04:33:03 PM · #484 |
| Incidentally, God hates figs. |
|
|
|
11/20/2007 04:37:09 PM · #485 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Acceptance of a belief over physical evidence, whether faith or superstition, IS an operation in the face of reason. Acts of faith against another often directly contradict reason, too (suicide bombers, inquisitions, witch hunts, exorcisms, cults, etc.). |
None of which I, or anyone I know, have been a part of.
Originally posted by scalvert:
I was comparing a disproven belief that most of us once held as absolute truth to one that continues to be held. Were the former believers stupid, naive, misled... or what? |
Nope. They were 4 years old.
Originally posted by scalvert:
Believe in God rests entirely on the Bible. Without those words of man, you would have no frame of reference to distinguish your faith from Allah, Zeus or Odin. |
Sure, it rests entirely on the Bible but it doesn't rest on the entire Bible.
Originally posted by Louis:
There aren't a lot of lovers around who'll carry signs at funerals berating the recently deceased, or who'll joyfully kill those who don't have a high opinion of their love.
|
I don't know a single believer (or non believer) personally who I think would do such a thing.
What exactly are those self-deprecating words you spoke of earlier? I might need to clarify my comments. |
|
|
|
11/20/2007 04:56:24 PM · #486 |
Originally posted by Phil:
What exactly are those self-deprecating words you spoke of earlier? |
"...it helps my poor little weak mind to..."
"Call faith what you want - misguided, stupid, blind..."
"...if I told you the reasons that I have such a strong faith you'd probably go along with the "he's crazy" crowd ..."
"I've been living in the land of unicorns and dragons I guess."
|
|
|
|
11/20/2007 05:23:26 PM · #487 |
"...it helps my poor little weak mind to..."
My mind is poor, little and weak. Trying to be both honest and humble.
"Call faith what you want - misguided, stupid, blind..."
Reading through this thread (and the countless others on this subject) you can't seriously believe that I would think anything otherwise would you?
"...if I told you the reasons that I have such a strong faith you'd probably go along with the "he's crazy" crowd ..."
If you don't believe or have faith, how are any of the words that I type on a photography forum going to have any effect? If we were sitting together where you could hear my tone and see my face it would be much different - at least on my end.
"I've been living in the land of unicorns and dragons I guess."
Well, when you say something like, "I don't know where you've been living but here in North America...." what are you insinuating other than I must be in a dream world? If fact means as much to you as you say then why not check my profile to see that I also live in North America. You already knew that though. Just another one of those non personal punches that really don't exist? |
|
|
|
11/20/2007 05:36:58 PM · #488 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Yes, faith is EXACTLY "assuming the outcome based on your beliefs," even in the face of common sense. A good analogy would be a child's belief in Santa Claus, and I'm sure many of us had complete, unwavering faith in his existence when we were 4 years old. Was it not true faith? Just imagine how much longer we'd believe in Santa if we were actively taught to not question that belief every day, under threat of eternal damnation, social stigma, and/or physical force, by all those we know and trust, at the direction of people whose income and power depended upon your continuing belief, and who actively attacked anything that could threaten that position. Any physics that might demonstrate the inherent impossibility of levitating reindeer MUST be faulty! |
Originally posted by scalvert:
I was comparing a disproven belief that most of us once held as absolute truth to one that continues to be held. Were the former believers stupid, naive, misled... or what? |
Originally posted by Phil:
Nope. They were 4 years old. |
So? Are you implying that older kids should know better with their improved education, reason, common sense...?
Originally posted by Phil:
My faith has nothing to do with man or the words of man. It goes much deeper and more powerful than that. |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Believe in God rests entirely on the Bible. Without those words of man, you would have no frame of reference to distinguish your faith from Allah, Zeus or Odin. |
Originally posted by Phil:
Sure, it rests entirely on the Bible but it doesn't rest on the entire Bible. |
So it DOES rest on the words of man, but only some of them. How did you determine which parts to ignore?
Message edited by author 2007-11-20 17:41:10. |
|
|
|
11/20/2007 06:06:33 PM · #489 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Believe in God rests entirely on the Bible. Without those words of man, you would have no frame of reference to distinguish your faith from Allah, Zeus or Odin. |
Absolutely not!
My faith in God has NOTHING whatsoever to do wqith the Bible, or any of the inane doctrination and brain-washing that I was exposed to in the first 50 years of my life.
Not to say that there isn't much good advice and thought in the Bible, and that there are organized sects that have and do practice genuoine goodness, but for the most part, there have always been major stumbling blocks with everything I've been offered.......usually in the form of rites and restrictions imposed that have to do with man, not God.
|
|
|
|
11/20/2007 06:10:43 PM · #490 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
But do not make the mistake of thinking that people like me, and many others in this thread, who have a deep-seated belief in the existence of God, are ipso facto incapable of "reason".
|
Originally posted by Louis:
Not incapable of reason, but willfully resistant to it: |
Where do you get the idea that you can't have faith and reason at the same time?
Here's an anology....I love my wife, and I like her.
I love her based on feelings that don't necessarily conform to reason, but the reasons that I like her are precisely that.
Message edited by author 2007-11-20 18:36:22.
|
|
|
|
11/20/2007 06:14:38 PM · #491 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
If there were physical evidence against the existence of God, then what you are saying might begin to make sense... |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Unwavering belief in something for which there is NO physical evidence is reasonable? I suppose anything is reasonable if you believe it is. :-/ |
So you're saying that there's nothing in your life that you believe that you don't have the incontrovertible proof for on hand?
|
|
|
|
11/20/2007 06:17:42 PM · #492 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
So? Are you implying that older kids should know better with their improved education, reason, common sense...? |
Nope. I am not implying anything. I am SAYING that I wouldn't consider them old enough to understand the TRUE feelings that give me faith in God vs what gives them faith in a man who brings a bag full of toys every year. I may be wrong but considering the fact that I wouldn't hand a 4 year old a razor or a loaded gun I somehow believe that I'm on the right track. Are you implying that I should know better than to believe in a God considering my improved education, reason and common sense?
Originally posted by scalvert:
So it DOES rest on the words of man, but only some of them. How did you determine which parts to ignore? |
I wouldn't consider it ignoring. I would think of it more as not giving as much attention to the parts that do not apply. Contrary to popular opinion, being a believer in God doesn't have to be believe in it all or believe in nothing kind of thing - something I struggled with for years. |
|
|
|
11/20/2007 06:18:17 PM · #493 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Not incapable of reason, but willfully resistant to it:
|
Originally posted by EducatedSavage:
An interesting facet of western thought is the prevalence of exclusivity.
Edit - that was all I had to add, but I changed my mind: |
Originally posted by Louis:
Religious faith is one area, it seems to me, where people are capable not only of unreasonable behaviour, but of willful blindness to the evidence of their senses, of having a strange ability to denounce otherwise perfectly acceptable notions (such as science), and of a proclivity to excoriate those who raise the merest hint of objection to what they believe. |
Originally posted by EducatedSavage:
Again, the exclusivity. Just because there are religious nutballs doesn't mean there aren't scientific ones. Religion and science have little relevence in regards to whether one acts counter to popularly accepted norms. |
Am I the only one who finds this breath of fresh air, intelligence, and reason from someone with the username  EducatedSavage ironic???? LOL!!!
|
|
|
|
11/20/2007 06:22:56 PM · #494 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Then let's discuss the concept of "love", why don't we? There are many who believe that "love" is nothing more than biochemistry in action, that it is pheromonic in nature. |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Love is simply biology overruling reason. |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Well, yeah, that's easy to say, but people BELIEVE in love. Some of them do anyway :-) They will deny that it is just biology, they will attach higher levels of meaning to it. And THAT is "faith". R. |
Got news for ya, Spaz.....if you REALLY believe that, you have never really been in love 'cause it has nothing to do with biology.
Lust, maternal instinct, protectiveness, all those things that get shoehorned into the category have biological roots, but Love?
Ah......that's something else entirely.
|
|
|
|
11/20/2007 06:28:22 PM · #495 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Then let's discuss the concept of "love", why don't we? There are many who believe that "love" is nothing more than biochemistry in action, that it is pheromonic in nature. |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Love is simply biology overruling reason. |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Well, yeah, that's easy to say, but people BELIEVE in love. Some of them do anyway :-) They will deny that it is just biology, they will attach higher levels of meaning to it. And THAT is "faith".
R. |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Emotions are not the same as faith. Sorry. |
Oh, my friend, you are wrong there!
Talk about things that fly in the face of reason, love.....and hate!
And the faith that inspires them and is inspired by them is an awful lot of what beliefs are created from and fed by.
|
|
|
|
11/20/2007 06:32:25 PM · #496 |
Originally posted by zxaar:
BUT, as soon as this someone tries to pass his belief as the truth, he needs to prove it. |
[b]ABSOLUTELY!!![/]
But I am not saying that *my* beliefs are truth for anyone other than myself.
That's the problem with most doctrine....the whole "My way is right and the only way.".
Yeah.......lemme know how that works out for ya!
|
|
|
|
11/20/2007 07:41:29 PM · #497 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Am I the only one who finds this breath of fresh air, intelligence, and reason from someone with the username EducatedSavage ironic???? LOL!!! |
I hope this comment means you find both my comments and my name charming - and not quite in the same way one would find a professional fool charming. ;) |
|
|
|
11/20/2007 08:54:02 PM · #498 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
I was comparing a disproven belief that most of us once held as absolute truth to one that continues to be held. Were the former believers stupid, naive, misled... or what? |
Originally posted by Phil:
Nope. They were 4 years old. |
Originally posted by scalvert:
So? Are you implying that older kids should know better with their improved education, reason, common sense...? |
Originally posted by Phil:
Nope. I am not implying anything. I am SAYING that I wouldn't consider them old enough to understand the TRUE feelings that give me faith in God vs what gives them faith in a man who brings a bag full of toys every year. I may be wrong but considering the fact that I wouldn't hand a 4 year old a razor or a loaded gun I somehow believe that I'm on the right track. |
Ah, so it's strictly a matter of age (independent of education, reason, and common sense), and when you consider them old enough they'll be able to understand those TRUE feelings. I wonder why Sunday School doesn't wait until kids are older if they can't understand faith anyway.
Originally posted by Phil:
I may be wrong but considering the fact that I wouldn't hand a 4 year old a razor or a loaded gun I somehow believe that I'm on the right track. |
The U.S. is trying very hard to keep nuclear arms out of the hands of Muslim fundamentalists. By your logic, maybe we should just wait until they're more mature?
Originally posted by Phil:
My faith has nothing to do with man or the words of man. It goes much deeper and more powerful than that. |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Belief in God rests entirely on the Bible. Without those words of man, you would have no frame of reference to distinguish your faith from Allah, Zeus or Odin. |
Originally posted by Phil:
Sure, it rests entirely on the Bible but it doesn't rest on the entire Bible. |
Originally posted by scalvert:
So it DOES rest on the words of man, but only some of them. How did you determine which parts to ignore? |
Originally posted by Phil:
I wouldn't consider it ignoring. I would think of it more as not giving as much attention to the parts that do not apply. |
Alrighty then... how did you determine which parts do not apply?
|
|
|
|
11/20/2007 09:08:45 PM · #499 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by zxaar:
BUT, as soon as this someone tries to pass his belief as the truth, he needs to prove it. |
ABSOLUTELY!!!
But I am not saying that *my* beliefs are truth for anyone other than myself.
That's the problem with most doctrine....the whole "My way is right and the only way.".
|
Exactly my thinking.
I have a friend who is jain he insists that the world is created as his books suggests, then there are few muslim friends who insist that world is created the way kuraan suggests. Both of them are pretty much convinced that their 'truth' is the truth.
I always believed the religion is one's private matter, so never try to argue with both of them.
|
|
|
|
11/20/2007 09:19:39 PM · #500 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Love is simply biology overruling reason. |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Got news for ya, Spaz.....if you REALLY believe that, you have never really been in love 'cause it has nothing to do with biology. |
Is that your belief, or a proven fact? Humans might not be the only creatures capable of love, which could very well implicate biology. |
|
