Poll: What is your religion?

[RDM]

I don't understand what this "evidence you accept" argument is all about. Evidence is measurable, repeatable and quantifiable. Pure evidence is to one person what it is to another (not to be confused with, say, circumstantial evidence).

You are mistaking evidence with scientific evidence.

 

[Hatter The Mad]

And I'm delighted to be able to offer you the chance to see it - find your nearest bible and start reading.

No, that is not proof. It is 'proof' just as much Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone is proof that Harry Potter and Hogwarts exists, and Harry Potter can perform magic.

Neither of those things (or any others) may convince you but that doesn't alter that they are proof.

It is not proof. It is 'proof' in the same way as me saying 'Hey, a teapot orbits the moon' is proof that a teapot orbits the moon.

So you're changing it then, first it is there is "not a shred of proof" and now it is "tangible proof". What would constitute tangible proof for you? Bearing in mind that if you choose to define things so narrowly then it may be impossible for anything to meet your particular standard - that doesn't necessarily imply that you are correct in applying it.

There isn't a shred of real proof.

 

[Naffa]

And I'm delighted to be able to offer you the chance to see it - find your nearest bible and start reading. That's proof that God exists. The millions of believers (from memory it's around 1 billion for the various forms of Christianity) are also proof.

Neither of those things (or any others) may convince you but that doesn't alter that they are proof.

Ah, the sanity in numbers argument. I'm sorry to disappoint you, but that does not constitute proof, or anything remotely like it. Also, I believe there are more than a billion members of the Catholic church, alone.

So you're changing it then, first it is there is "not a shred of proof" and now it is "tangible proof". What would constitute tangible proof for you? Bearing in mind that if you choose to define things so narrowly then it may be impossible for anything to meet your particular standard - that doesn't necessarily imply that you are correct in applying it.

Well, if your standard of proof is merely that of the bible and the fact that lots of people share similar beliefs to yourself, then I wouldn't be able to compare standards of proof with you.

 

[Hatter The Mad]

You are mistaking evidence with scientific evidence.

And what evidence other than scientific can be used as proof something exists?

 

[Tefal]

I like a very badly mutilated dice metaphor



I have a 6 sided fair dice here (numbers 1,2,3,4,5,6), I will roll it.

What is the number going to be?

Theist- 6
Atheist- 1
Agnostic- don't know

 

[Dup]

Growing up I've found life stressful and I certainly haven't needed religion getting in the way of things. Even as a naive child at a C of E school I wasn't very comfortable with the whole God and Jesus thing.

Religion is very old fashioned and out of touch now IMO, and that alone makes me question its validity right away. I'm not surprised there are more Atheists than anything else, nobody can be bothered with it. There's too many other things to deal with that we can see and quantify.

 

[Tombstone]

I like a very badly mutilated dice metaphor



I have a 6 sided fair dice here, I will roll it.

What is the number going to be?

Theist- 6
Atheist- 1
Agnostic- don't know

Me - Depends what the numbers are on the sides of the dice

 

[Dolph]

I don't understand what this "evidence you accept" argument is all about. Evidence is measurable, repeatable and quantifiable. Pure evidence is to one person what it is to another (not to be confused with, say, circumstantial evidence).

I can measure the number of bibles in the world, check their consistency, quantify it, confirm changes.

You appear to be confusing scientific data with evidence.

 

[Tefal]

Me - Depends what the numbers are on the sides of the dice

edited for you, you ignostic smart arse

 

[Tombstone]

edited for you, you ignostic smart arse

Hehehe

 

[Hatter The Mad]

And I'm delighted to be able to offer you the chance to see it - find your nearest bible and start reading. That's proof that God exists. The millions of believers (from memory it's around 1 billion for the various forms of Christianity) are also proof.

Neither of those things (or any others) may convince you but that doesn't alter that they are proof.

So you are saying that people who don't believe the moon landing ever happened is proof that it never happened?

That there is proof that Islam is the only one, true religion? (Millions of Islamic people believe that)

That there is proof that there is no god? (Billions of Atheists believe that)

Your argument falls flat on its face.

 

[Dolph]

And what evidence other than scientific can be used as proof something exists?

Science rarely proves any such thing. Science is used for prediction, and makes proposals how that prediction arrives at for ideas that fit within the remit of scientific investigation.

The very nature of scientific investigation means that it is not suitable for investigating everything, indeed it was never designed to do so.

 

[RDM]

And what evidence other than scientific can be used as proof something exists?

Scientific evidence can only be used for something to exist in the physical world. God tends to be metaphysical by it's very nature. There is no scientific evidence of god because there is no test. If there is no test then you cannot have repeatable results. Come up with a repeatable test for the existence or non-existence of god and then scientific evidence starts to matter.

Scientific realism is not the be all and end all of life. There is no scientific evidence for love, that seems to exist. There is no scientific evidence for pride, that seems to exist. Where is the scientific evidence for whether a song is good or not? Where is the scientific evidence for a particular peice of art being good or not?

Take the abortion debate for example, give me the scientific evidence for when "personhood" begins. Evidence can be subjective. If I have "felt god" it is not something that can be tested for.

 

[Hatter The Mad]

Scientific realism is not the be all and end all of life. There is no scientific evidence for love, that seems to exist. There is no scientific evidence for pride, that seems to exist. Where is the scientific evidence for whether a song is good or not? Where is the scientific evidence for a particular peice of art being good or not?

I can measure the number of bibles in the world, check their consistency, quantify it, confirm changes.

You appear to be confusing scientific data with evidence.

Good point, yes I am.

However, I still cannot comprehend why the bible is evidence for God existing?

 

[Tombstone]

Scientific evidence can only be used for something to exist in the physical world. God tends to be metaphysical by it's very nature.

Ancient greek and roman gods often took physical form, so they at least temporarily existed in the physical world. I'm not all that up to speed on Hindu but think I have read that their gods are known to take physical form too

 

[Naffa]

Scientific evidence can only be used for something to exist in the physical world. God tends to be metaphysical by it's very nature. There is no scientific evidence of god because there is no test. If there is no test then you cannot have repeatable results. Come up with a repeatable test for the existence or non-existence of god and then scientific evidence starts to matter.

A very clever way to evade the fact that there is no reason to even suggest that a deity of any kind exists. That's your belief, and obviously you're entitled to it, however, some people do believe that God's existence is a scientific hypothesis like any other.

You've presented, quite possibly, the weakest argument I've heard to date. You're basically saying "evidence doesn't matter", ala, you believe in God. Well I'm sorry, but to myself, and most rational minded people, evidence does matter, ala I don't believe in God.

Scientific realism is not the be all and end all of life. There is no scientific evidence for love, that seems to exist. There is no scientific evidence for pride, that seems to exist. Where is the scientific evidence for whether a song is good or not? Where is the scientific evidence for a particular peice of art being good or not?

Well, I hate to say it... But the word I'm looking for here is.... Wrong. There is a scientific explanation for love, it's just that many people don't wish to accept it as true.

Take the abortion debate for example, give me the scientific evidence for when "personhood" begins. Evidence can be subjective. If I have "felt god" it is not something that can be tested for.

Because it's likely a delusional hallucination. The argument from personal experience doesn't count as evidential data for obvious reasons. The abortion debate is ridiculous in it's very nature, and that is shown by the fact that nearly all of the people that partake in it are religious.

 

[semi-pro waster]

Exactly. It ties in with this whole notion of 'individual truth', which again, is ridiculous (in my eyes). Something is either true, or it isn't true.

I.e. The existence of God.

So do you also believe that morality is absolute? i.e. there is nothing relative about it?

No, that is not proof. It is 'proof' just as much Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone is proof that Harry Potter and Hogwarts exists, and Harry Potter can perform magic.

It is not proof. It is 'proof' in the same way as me saying 'Hey, a teapot orbits the moon' is proof that a teapot orbits the moon.

Is Harry Potter purported to be a religion? I'm sure it could be, some of the fans are certainly worryingly devout enough but that's by the bye.

They could constitute proof but proof does not have to be irrefutable to exist as proof/evidence. Or to put it another way - in a courtroom it is asked that proof be advanced, the amount of weight you put on that proof is variable according to what you believe the veracity of the source to be.

There isn't a shred of real proof.

And now it's "real proof" - is that just proof that you agree with?

Ah, the sanity in numbers argument. I'm sorry to disappoint you, but that does not constitute proof, or anything remotely like it. Also, I believe there are more than a billion members of the Catholic church, alone.

I'm not saying anything about the sanity, I'm telling you that there is proof, whether you choose to put any weight on it or not is up to you as I keep pointing out.

Well, if your standard of proof is merely that of the bible and the fact that lots of people share similar beliefs to yourself, then I wouldn't be able to compare standards of proof with you.

Actually I'm apathetic agnostic so whether millions of people share the same beliefs as me is entirely irrelevant - I take precisely the same approach to whether my stance is common as I do to the question of a god, it doesn't impact me in any way and I don't care much about it. You are, of course, entirely welcome to say that the standard of proof doesn't satisfy you - that does not and never has stopped it being proof of a sort.

 

[Dolph]

Good point, yes I am.

However, I still cannot comprehend why the bible is evidence for God existing?

The bible, the events (which can't be verified either way) described therein, and so on are all evidence. What weight or validity you give that evidence is the question (and I imagine our answers would actually be pretty similar), but it is evidence if you work on the assumption that the book describes events accurately.

Ancient greek and roman gods often took physical form, so they at least temporarily existed in the physical world. I'm not all that up to speed on Hindu but think I have read that their gods are known to take physical form too

But science is really, really bad at dealing with inconsistent or transient states...

 

[Hatter The Mad]

And now it's "real proof" - is that just proof that you agree with?

Proof is the formal demonstration of the validity of a deductive argument.

 

[Hatter The Mad]

The bible, the events (which can't be verified either way) described therein, and so on are all evidence. What weight or validity you give that evidence is the question (and I imagine our answers would actually be pretty similar), but it is evidence if you work on the assumption that the book describes events accurately.

Ok, so the bible is an example of discredited evidence?