What do you Believe??? (Religion)

[d0ublestr0ker0ll]

1 minute ago, Renegade7 said:

 

I am claiming He is real, but I'm also saying it's impossible to prove that with science.  That's not what religion is or does.

 

 

And neither can you prove that He isn't, can you?  You are also making a claim that you cannot prove, at least I'm admitting it, now it's your turn.

 

That's the point, the burden of proof is on the proclaimer.  You are making the claim.  God is real, prove it.

2 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

Sure.

 

Do you ever question that you actually exist as a physical entity?

 

Of course I do man.  I question everything.

[PeterMP]

2 minutes ago, d0ublestr0ker0ll said:

 

That's the point, the burden of proof is on the proclaimer.  You are making the claim.  God is real, prove it.

 

Of course I do man.  I question everything.

 

Do you believe you are an actual physical entity?

[Renegade7]

1 minute ago, d0ublestr0ker0ll said:

 

That's the point, the burden of proof is on the proclaimer.  You are making the claim.  God is real, prove it.

 

But you also proclaiming, dude.  The only reason you are going in circles is because you know you don't have any proof either, stop frontin, let it go and move on.

 

This is totally a chicken or the egg argument you are making on "who made the claim first", both claims were first made before either us were born and neither side has provided proof of an answer yet.

 

And I came back into to this thread to quote your claim, you did not come into this thread to quote mine.  I've already given you an answer you do not like, not my problem, now where is your answer, do you even have one?  Or are you going to keep playing "I know what you are, but what am i?"

[d0ublestr0ker0ll]

7 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

But you also proclaiming, dude.  The only reason you are going in circles is because you know you don't have any proof either, stop frontin, let it go and move on.

 

This is totally a chicken or the egg argument you are making on "who made the claim first", both claims were first made before either us were born and neither side has provided proof of an answer yet.

 

And I came back into to this thread to quote your claim, you did not come into this thread to quote mine.  I've already given you an answer you do not like, not my problem, now where is your answer, do you even have one?  Or are you going to keep playing "I know what you are, but what am i?"

 

Wow.

 

I didn't know you'd get this way.  We cool bro.

 

What burden of proof is on me?  I don't believe in a God, you do.  Prove to be Zeus is real.

 

Poseidon bout to flood your ish.  I'm praying to him for you.

[Renegade7]

2 minutes ago, d0ublestr0ker0ll said:

 

Wow.

 

I didn't know you'd get this way.  We cool bro.

 

What burden of proof is on me?  I don't believe in a God, you do.  Prove to be Zeus is real.

 

Poseidon bout to flood your ish.  I'm praying to him for you.

 

We're cool, but you are dead wrong here.

 

Agree to disagree and let's move on.

[d0ublestr0ker0ll]

1 minute ago, Renegade7 said:

 

We're cool, but you are dead wrong here.

 

Agree to disagree and let's move on.

 

Dead wrong?  About the burden of proof being on the proclaimer?

 

I'll move on.

[TheGreatBuzz]

1 hour ago, Renegade7 said:

 

We're cool, but you are dead wrong here.

 

Agree to disagree and let's move on.

 

1 hour ago, d0ublestr0ker0ll said:

 

Dead wrong?  About the burden of proof being on the proclaimer?

 

I'll move on.

 

I feel a battle of “Who Gets the Last Word” coming.

[d0ublestr0ker0ll]

2 minutes ago, The Almighty Buzz said:

 

 

I feel a battle of “Who Gets the Last Word” coming.

 

*types something for the sake of it*

 

Nah, that guy is a great dude.  Renegade.  We have a difference of opinion here.

[Renegade7]

4 minutes ago, The Almighty Buzz said:

 

 

I feel a battle of “Who Gets the Last Word” coming.

 

Nope, @d0ublestr0ker0ll and i have better things to do...

Edited February 23, 2022 by Renegade7

[TheGreatBuzz]

4 minutes ago, d0ublestr0ker0ll said:

 

*types something for the sake of it*

 

Nah, that guy is a great dude.  Renegade.  We have a difference of opinion here.

 

4 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

Nope, @d0ublestr0ker0ll and i have better things to do...

 

And we have Renegade in the lead!!!!

[CousinsCowgirl84]

1 hour ago, Renegade7 said:

 

Burden of proof is on whoever is making the argument, it goes both ways.

How do you prove something that doesn’t exist doesn’t exist? Could you give me an example of anything that has been proven not to exist?

 

It should be infinitely easier to prove something exists if it exists than it is to prove something doesn’t exist if it doesn’t exist, and yet we still have our doubts.

Edited February 23, 2022 by CousinsCowgirl84

[Jabbyrwock]

14 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

Could you give me an example of anything that has been proven not to exist?

 

A limit to human stupidity.

[CousinsCowgirl84]

5 minutes ago, Jabbyrwock said:

 

A limit to human stupidity.

People try to prove it every day but they fail.

[PeterMP]

Proving anything outside of math is essentially impossible.  But proving a negative is even a higher hurdle.

 

https://nautil.us/why-we-cant-rule-out-bigfoot-2269/

 

 

 

[PleaseBlitz]

Nobody needs to "prove" anything beyond a doubt and there are various levels of proof.  "Beyond any doubt"; "beyond a reasonable doubt" (the standard in US criminal prosecutions); "more likely than not" or "a preponderance of the evidence" (the standard in most US civil cases); etc.  Absolutism is just a tool for people to make their beliefs bulletproof.

 

"Faith" is just a word for believing in something based on bad evidence.  As applied to a particular religion, it really depends on what your religion believes.  If your religion takes the Bible at face value and insists the heavens and the earth were created in 6 days and around 10,000 years ago, well, the evidence does not support that, but you are free to believe it anyways.  If you believe that, at some point in the past, two of every living creature was on one boat, well, the evidence does not support that.  And so forth and so on. 

[PeterMP]

1 hour ago, PleaseBlitz said:

Nobody needs to "prove" anything beyond a doubt and there are various levels of proof.  "Beyond any doubt"; "beyond a reasonable doubt" (the standard in US criminal prosecutions); "more likely than not" or "a preponderance of the evidence" (the standard in most US civil cases); etc.  Absolutism is just a tool for people to make their beliefs bulletproof.

 

"Faith" is just a word for believing in something based on bad evidence.  As applied to a particular religion, it really depends on what your religion believes.  If your religion takes the Bible at face value and insists the heavens and the earth were created in 6 days and around 10,000 years ago, well, the evidence does not support that, but you are free to believe it anyways.  If you believe that, at some point in the past, two of every living creature was on one boat, well, the evidence does not support that.  And so forth and so on. 

 

I just want to add.

 

Essentially everybody acts daily based on things that wouldn't be accepted as good scientific evidence.  Nobody  really conducts scientific experiments to determine who they trust, who they think loves them and that they love, etc.  Even in the context of "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" nobody conducts a jury trial to decide not to trust somebody or even a civil trial.

 

All of us act daily based on beliefs that aren't the product of scientific experiments and aren't really backed by science.  Even the most common and most powerful interpretation of science is based on what is called an axiomatic assumption and that is that things that are essentially natural laws exist.  But there isn't scientific evidence that things that are natural laws exist.  Science can't prove something that it is based on exist.

Edited February 23, 2022 by PeterMP

[d0ublestr0ker0ll]

11 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

I just want to add.

 

Essentially everybody acts daily based on things that wouldn't be accepted as good scientific evidence.  Nobody  really conducts scientific experiments to determine who they trust, who they think loves them and that they love, etc.  Even in the context of "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" nobody conducts a jury trial to decide not to trust somebody or even a civil trial.

 

All of us act daily based on beliefs that aren't the product of scientific experiments and aren't really backed by science.  Even the most common and most powerful interpretation of science is based on what is called an axiomatic assumption and that is that things that are essentially natural laws exist.  But there isn't scientific evidence that things that are natural laws exist.  Science can't prove something that it is based on exist.

 

It seems as though your argument for what you believe is based on deconstructing anything and everything with the question, "but is it REAL???"

 

Now I'm convinced, God is real.

[PeterMP]

20 minutes ago, d0ublestr0ker0ll said:

 

It seems as though your argument for what you believe is based on deconstructing anything and everything with the question, "but is it REAL???"

 

Now I'm convinced, God is real.

 

You're the one that says you question everything.

 

I'm saying that we all have sets of beliefs.  We all act like things are true that for the most part we don't even think about much less conduct scientific experiments to support or trials to decide.

 

The standard of evidence that many people want to suggest should be required to believe in God isn't what many people require to believe many things.

 

So the first part of the question of should you believe in God is what is a reasonable standard of evidence to believe in God.

 

If you say you need scientific quality data to believe in God, I'm fine with that.  I would just ask you to recognize that you've set a very high barrier and a barrier that isn't met for most beliefs for most other people.

Edited February 23, 2022 by PeterMP

[PeterMP]

Just to add on one more thing and the higher the barrier to believe in something the more likely you are going to reject things that are true.  And we see that in the history of science.  For periods of times, most scientists have rejected ideas that turned out to be good ideas.  Plate tectonics and continental drift are an example of that.  A small set of people believed in it for years but because the evidence wasn't very good much of the scientific community rejected it.  That much of the scientific community rejected didn't mean their belief was wrong.  The issue wasn't the belief.  It was the amount and quality of evidence that was required by most of the scientific community.

[d0ublestr0ker0ll]

5 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

You're the one that says you question everything.

 

I'm saying that we all have sets of beliefs.  We all act like things are true that for the most part we don't even think about much less conduct scientific experiments to support or trials to decide.

 

The standard of evidence that many people want to suggest should be required to believe in God isn't what many people require to believe many things.

 

So the first part of the question of should you believe in God is what is a reasonable standard of evidence to believe in God.

 

If you say you need scientific quality data to believe in God, I'm fine with that.  I would just ask you to recognize that you've set a very high barrier and a barrier that isn't met for most beliefs for most other people.

 

I would like to know examples of these beliefs.  Are you talking the theory of relativity, because that works for us...even if quantum physics, black holes and dark matter play a part, and the theory needs tweaking?

 

There are levels to "understanding".  A huge amount of things we have quite a grasp on in our natural world.  Navigation, buoyancy, flight.  But once you go the "is it all a simulation?" route, where everything seems like it could be a play...you lose me.

 

In this simulation, we have a good grasp on many areas of current science.

[PeterMP]

4 minutes ago, d0ublestr0ker0ll said:

 

I would like to know examples of these beliefs.  Are you talking the theory of relativity, because that works for us...even if quantum physics, black holes and dark matter play a part, and the theory needs tweaking?

 

There are levels to "understanding".  A huge amount of things we have quite a grasp on in our natural world.  Navigation, buoyancy, flight.  But once you go the "is it all a simulation?" route, where everything seems like it could be a play...you lose me.

 

In this simulation, we have a good grasp on many areas of current science.

 

Whether to trust people.  Whether to believe we love people or they love us.

 

Is the car you pass on the way to work suddenly going to switch lanes and slam into you if you pass them?

 

Whether what we learn from science today will be relevant tomorrow.  Are the laws of gravity as we understand them today going to hold tomorrow?

 

Whether you actually can decide to believe or not believe in God (do you have free will)?

 

Did yesterday even exist?

Edited February 23, 2022 by PeterMP

[d0ublestr0ker0ll]

Just now, PeterMP said:

 

Whether to trust people.  Whether to believe we love people or they love us.

 

Is the car you passed on the way to work suddenly going to switch lanes and slam into you if you pass them?

 

Whether what we learn from science today will be relevant tomorrow.  Are the laws of gravity as we understand them today going to hold tomorrow?

 

Whether you actually can decide to believe or not believe in God (do you have free will)?

 

Did yesterday even exist?

 

Got to be honest with you, you sound like a very convinced agnostic (like I am), on shrooms and 5 giant bong hits (which I don't partake in).

 

Yet you're a stout believer in God.

 

Gotta admit, I like the way you think.

[purbeast]

6 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

Whether to trust people.  Whether to believe we love people or they love us.

 

Is the car you pass on the way to work suddenly going to switch lanes and slam into you if you pass them?

 

Whether what we learn from science today will be relevant tomorrow.  Are the laws of gravity as we understand them today going to hold tomorrow?

 

Whether you actually can decide to believe or not believe in God (do you have free will)?

 

Did yesterday even exist?

I'd like some of what this guy is having please.

[PeterMP]

8 hours ago, d0ublestr0ker0ll said:

 

Got to be honest with you, you sound like a very convinced agnostic (like I am), on shrooms and 5 giant bong hits (which I don't partake in).

 

Yet you're a stout believer in God.

 

Gotta admit, I like the way you think.

 

Honestly, I'm not sure that I've said anything very outrageous.

 

Being extremely generous to ourselves, we make decisions by weighing sets of beliefs.  To my knowledge, nobody list their beliefs and evaluates them based on the available scientific evidence before making a decision.

 

But even further, we don't generally require people to support their beliefs by scientific evidence.  Recently in the Ukraine war thread, I essentially said that Putin has recently had success using his military to gain control of territory and will continue to do so until he has a failure.

 

Nobody showed up said I didn't have "proof" (as in being able to provide scientific support).  I've stated something that is a belief of mine that is not supported by scientific evidence and that I would not claim to be able to prove.

 

I recently had a conversation with @bearrock about the effects of progressives on the electability of Democrats.  We both stated beliefs.  At best we had poll data supporting out beliefs.  Nobody showed up and said we couldn't "prove" our statements.

 

One of the things that I believe that   (I at least like to think) affects my decision making on a regular basis is that my wife loves me.  If somebody started a thread on spouses and I said in that thread, my wife loves me.  Nobody would show up and ask if I have "proof" (i.e. good scientific evidence).  Anybody ever do any science experiments before selecting who to vote for?  No.  We vote based on beliefs that aren't supported by science.  There's nothing outrageous about any of that.

 

And yet you felt the need to come in here and declare that people were stating a belief without "proof" (i.e. good scientific evidence). 

 

And it isn't like this thread was being used as an evangelizing tool or there was any evangelizing being done in this thread.

 

What is odd to me is your ability to ignore all the other things people believe without scientific evidence and yet for this one belief you felt the need to (aggressively) come in and point out that people believe in it without a standard of scientific evidence that would be counted as proof.

Edited February 24, 2022 by PeterMP

[The Sisko]

Quote

The topic of discussion is whether prayer is expected and backed up via Bible verses to prevent anything bad from ever happening to anyone ever while on Earth.  I have not seen that verse, have you?

OK, so I step away for a few days, all hell breaks loose and the thread goes bonkers. 😊 @Renegade7 I don’t recall anyone saying anything this hyperbolic. I certainly didn’t. What I am saying is that your comments seem to imply that supplications are a rare event for Christians whereas in my experience, it’s a very common occurrence.  Moreover, the Bible itself exhorts adherents to make supplications to God with the expectation that those supplications will be answered:

“Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours.”

-Mark 11:24

There are others, but for the sake of brevity, I’ll limit it to that one passage.

Moreover, the idea that Christians should just make generalized prayers with no real expectations of any worldly benefit contradicts the idea of God’s alleged power and its value to his worshipers. Much of the Bible is devoted to this exact idea of a living, powerful God, e.g. such and such was faithful, made sincere prayers to God for help in the face of adversity and God slew his enemies while the pagan's idols just sat quietly by and did nothing. Simply put, Biblical authors understood that there wasn’t much value to people in a God that could only pat you on the back and sympathize with you in your misery, so they created a God that could allegedly do stuff.

On 2/22/2022 at 8:44 PM, d0ublestr0ker0ll said:

This is the Flying Spaghetti Monster argument.  There is no proof that it doesn't exist.  The Burden of Proof is on the people making the argument.

A lot of theists think that atheists have no morals or belief system. That's not the case. My personal moral code is much the same as the one theists claim to have. That is, I have one, single, simple yet powerful moral rule. Don't. Be. A. Putz. I personally believe that our ability to avoid extinction hinges in part, on moving away from religious beliefs. Being a putz that happens to not believe in a god doesn't help that one bit. j/s

 

On 2/22/2022 at 8:49 PM, Renegade7 said:

Burden of proof is on whoever is making the argument, it goes both ways.

Doublestroker wasn't entirely correct in how he stated it, but that's not how this works. The burden of proof is on the one making extraordinary claims. An all powerful God is exactly such an extraordinary claim. Google Russell's teapot for a better, more nuanced explanation than I could ever provide.

 

13 hours ago, PeterMP said:

I just want to add.

 

Essentially everybody acts daily based on things that wouldn't be accepted as good scientific evidence.  Nobody  really conducts scientific experiments to determine who they trust, who they think loves them and that they love, etc.  Even in the context of "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" nobody conducts a jury trial to decide not to trust somebody or even a civil trial.

 

All of us act daily based on beliefs that aren't the product of scientific experiments and aren't really backed by science.  Even the most common and most powerful interpretation of science is based on what is called an axiomatic assumption and that is that things that are essentially natural laws exist.  But there isn't scientific evidence that things that are natural laws exist.  Science can't prove something that it is based on exist.

You're making an invalid comparison with this. I have empirical evidence that my wife and daughter love me. I see it every day in their actions that jibe with their verbal claims of love for me. However, in the Bible that some Christians accept as the unerring word of God and others at least accept as mostly true, there is evidence that God is a genocidal maniac. He killed the world's population except for Noah, his family, and various animals including penguins and polar bears that somehow managed to make their way from the frigid north to the desert to hop on a cramped ark. According to the Bible, he also killed the innocent, firstborn sons of the Egyptians to prove a point to a recalcitrant ruler. He killed Job's family and gave him replacements as though that was adequate compensation for the loss of unique individual lives - people that as an omnipotent being, he could have just raised from the dead BTW, but chose not to. Furthermore, this "loving" God ordered ethnic cleansing, being generous, or genocide if I'm not generous, against the Canaanites, among others. So, once Jesus shows up, I'm now supposed to believe that this same murderous, genocidal God is now all about love and forgiveness simply because, well, what? I've said it before in this thread I think, that I may be wrong and God does in fact exist. However, if the God of the Abrahamic religions does exist, by the evidence in his own book, he's not a moral being worthy of my friendship, let alone worship. Now even though I can't know with 100% certainty that my wife and daughter love me, I can say with the same degree of certainty that I don't have any proof they don't. Moreover, unlike theists with their God, if I ever was given proof my family didn't love me, I'd govern myself accordingly rather than excusing the behavior through various apologetics.

 

Edited February 24, 2022 by The Sisko