The pope. Popeing about.

[DAnDan]

Are you sure? can you unequivocally prove that my conciousness is simply the sum of my parts. Is my Ego just a combination of genes and accident? Can you prove that also?

Did God not create that mechanism to create that uniqueness if what you suppose is true, (scientifically the mechanism of our unique conciousness or sense of self is not known).

Again it is simply evidence based on faith that you can't accept, but the person with faith can. Again proving my point.

I see what you mean, you're basically refusing to pick a side, due to not being able to prove either one, that in itself makes sense.
However, when one side is purely logical, with a LOT (the whole evidence of evolution) of evidence and science behind it, and the other the other is a belief in something that has zero proof, and goes against pretty much every law of nature, surely you can see which one is vastly more probable?

 

[jp_bl_68]

The same can be said for claiming there is No God, until someone shows you some scientific evidence it is still just a theory.

A man claims that he experiences a mysterious being that only he can perceive, a being that tells him how to live his life. This man is sent to a psychiatrist who concludes that he is suffering from a mental illness that causes him to believe this and that this mysterious being does not really exist.

The psychiatrist is unable to definitively prove that there is no being because of its very nature but he can prove beyond reasonable doubt that it is just the delusion of a mad man.

Surely the psychiatrist starts with the assumption that there is no mysterious being because of the complete lack of evidence to support its existence and then he strives to convince the patient of this.


How does the belief of the patient differ from the belief of theists?

 

[DAnDan]

How does the belief of the patient differ from the belief of theists?

Only through sheer numbers, and the amount of time it has existed. They both follow the same thought pattern of belief though.

 

[jp_bl_68]

Are you sure? can you unequivocally prove that my conciousness is simply the sum of my parts. Is my Ego just a combination of genes and accident? Can you prove that also?

I can't as I've not done the research but I'm sure I could find studies and empirical evidence that support what I've said (if I could be arsed looking for them, that is )

Again it is simply evidence based on faith that you can't accept, but the person with faith can. Again proving my point.

Evidence based on faith is not evidence.

 

[Pudney]

Curiosity questions here:

The answer has to be that no these monsters & creatures don't exist except in fables & stories.
If we want to delve into stories written many centuries ago such as the Tales of the Arabian nights are we to believe people back then went around on flying carpets ? by your reasoning we can't actually prove they didn't so maybe they did ?

Are you saying written texts are not sufficient to be used as evidence?

A man claims that he experiences a mysterious being that only he can perceive, a being that tells him how to live his life. This man is sent to a psychiatrist who concludes that he is suffering from a mental illness that causes him to believe this and that this mysterious being does not really exist.

The psychiatrist is unable to definitively prove that there is no being because of its very nature but he can prove beyond reasonable doubt that it is just the delusion of a mad man.

Surely the psychiatrist starts with the assumption that there is no mysterious being because of the complete lack of evidence to support its existence and then he strives to convince the patient of this.


How does the belief of the patient differ from the belief of theists?

Are you a psychiatrist?

 

[jp_bl_68]

I am not.

 

[DAnDan]

Are you saying written texts are not sufficient to be used as evidence?

Is Harry Potter proof of Hogwarts?

 

[Castiel]

Personally I don't, it was just a point to show that opinion style proof can be used in any way, to prove anything. I could just as easily say that the keyboard I'm typing on is proof there's no god. That's the failing of opinion proof, to anyone other than the person saying it, it's worthless unless the other person is of the exact same opinion.

Indeed, which is my point about atheism, it is entirely an opinion or in this case a faith based position.

That's not how scientific theories work though. You formulate the theory based on observations, which in this case is peoples belief in god(s), you then test the theory by seeing if the evidence and predictions support it. Lack of evidence cannot prove a positive theory, only the other way around. In this case, the theory produces no evidence or predictions, so has no basis to be considered correct.

Actually absence of evidence is only that, it is not evidence of absence. It can prove nothing either way.

Besides we are talking about Faith and not Science, the requirement of acceptance of belief or prediction are not the same.

For a faith based ideology what is accepted as evidence may not be the same as what science may accept, given something like the Higgs particle for example, you could argue that there is not evidence of it and the observations that led to its supposition could also be evidence of God (hence the God Particle nickname).

So a Scientist will take a set of observations as evidence of the Higgs elementary Particle, yet a man of Faith may take those exact same observations and say that is evidence of God.

The theory is that there is a god, the evidence is that there's no evidence that there isn't. All that proves is that you cannot prove the theory, and the theory fails as a scientific theory.

Except it is not a scientific theory, it is a Faith.

Fair enough if that's how you want to believe. Personally though I can't agree. In my opinion, unless there is any evidence (real, testable, re-creatable evidence) for the theory, there's little point in giving it any credibility. Of course that's not to say it's 100% impossible, that would be wrong, just that until there's reason to believe it, I'll discount is as "near enough impossible, not worth considering at the present time."

Like evolution? you cannot re-create, test or to any real extent observe evolution. Do you accept that?

I do as it fits what we know, but then a man of Faith would say the same for the evidence he accepts as proof of a God.

 

[Pudney]

I am not.

Then surely your scenario is engineered to support the hypothesis due to your assumption. In fact does a psychiatrist strive to convince patients of anything.

This is me being pedantic more than offering a counter argument.

Is Harry Potter proof of Hogwarts?

Is Herodotus proof of the Battle of Thermopylae?

 

[izzy eckerslike]

Curiosity questions here:



Are you saying written texts are not sufficient to be used as evidence?


?

Absolutely, what a bizarre question , ancient written texts are proof of nothing.

In fact some modern written texts are proof of nothing ,try reading the Daily Mail for a good example

 

[Pudney]

Absolutely, what a bizarre question , ancient written texts are proof of nothing.

Good to know. There goes all we know of Ancient Greece and Rome. Ho hum I guess, you may want to inform historians of it

 

[izzy eckerslike]

Good to know. There goes all we know of Ancient Greece and Rome. Ho hum I guess, you may want to inform historians of it

I presumed you were hinting particularly at the bible, however do we still believe that all the Greek/Roman gods existed because they wrote about them??

 

[Castiel]

I see what you mean, you're basically refusing to pick a side, due to not being able to prove either one, that in itself makes sense.
However, when one side is purely logical, with a LOT (the whole evidence of evolution) of evidence and science behind it, and the other the other is a belief in something that has zero proof, and goes against pretty much every law of nature, surely you can see which one is vastly more probable?

I can, You can, but a man of faith, like the Guy I supposed accepts as evidence things we do not and that is my whole point.

He takes things he observes and cannot explain, that science cannot explain as proof that his faith is intact.

Atheism is simply the antithesis of this.

I said some time ago in response to someone stating that Atheism is the natural state of the scientific mind, atheism is not representative of scientific method, Agnosticism is.

 

[RDM]

Like evolution? you cannot re-create, test or to any real extent observe evolution. Do you accept that?

That is not entirely true. There have been several studies that have shown evolution in action, one on a micro scale (evolution of e.coli bacteria) and one on a macro scale (was a type of moth I believe). The reason I make a distinction (there really isn't one) is because when confronted with the first the general Creationist argument is "We have never seen it on a macro scale".

 

[DAnDan]

Like evolution? you cannot re-create, test or to any real extent observe evolution. Do you accept that?

You can actually, and people have done. Look up Richard Lenski's ecoli experiments if you want to; it's good reading, and shows evolution in action. There are also plenty of other examples, but I don't have time to find details of them for you right now sorry.

 

[jp_bl_68]

In fact does a psychiatrist strive to convince patients of anything.

I don't know, I've never met a psychiatrist. I might've worded that clumsily but I would've thought that a mental health professional would try to steer patients away from believing in invisible beings. Maybe not. I suppose it could depend on the patient in question.

 

[DAnDan]

Good to know. There goes all we know of Ancient Greece and Rome. Ho hum I guess, you may want to inform historians of it

Oh come on, you must be able to see the difference between something which is undeniably a historical, non-fiction book, whose content is reliable and corresponds correctly with known evidence, and something that has no way to separate itself from fiction.

 

[RDM]

I presumed you were hinting particularly at the bible, however do we still believe that all the Greek/Roman gods existed because they wrote about them??

The point that he was making that seems to have gone "whoosh" right over your head is that huge chunks of everything we know with regards to Roman and Greek history we only know due to written documents.

Hence the question:

Is Herodotus proof of the Battle of Thermopylae?

 

[Castiel]

A man claims that he experiences a mysterious being that only he can perceive, a being that tells him how to live his life. This man is sent to a psychiatrist who concludes that he is suffering from a mental illness that causes him to believe this and that this mysterious being does not really exist.

The psychiatrist is unable to definitively prove that there is no being because of its very nature but he can prove beyond reasonable doubt that it is just the delusion of a mad man.

Surely the psychiatrist starts with the assumption that there is no mysterious being because of the complete lack of evidence to support its existence and then he strives to convince the patient of this.


How does the belief of the patient differ from the belief of theists?

What if there was 3 billion people who perceive this mysterious being and yet only one Psychiatrist who does not. Who is the madman?

 

[DAnDan]

I can, You can, but a man of faith, like the Guy I supposed accepts as evidence things we do not and that is my whole point.

He takes things he observes and cannot explain, that science cannot explain as proof that his faith is intact.

Atheism is simply the antithesis of this.

I said some time ago in response to someone stating that Atheism is the natural state of the scientific mind, atheism is not representative of scientific method, Agnosticism is.

I see, it seems we're both arguing the same point then but from different angles. What I'd like to be saying is that the guy who accepts that as proof is taking an entirely illogical stance, and in my opinion, very wrong.