There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life

Volcs said:
And this is my entire issue with the concept - that of faith. I'm not going to beliive something without evidence, it just doesn't make sense from my perspective.

It was an example, replace that statement with any other religious statement for which there is no testable premise. The entire concept of an omni-present being for example.
Click to expand...

I'm sure you are well aware but that is what makes religion a faith based position, you do not need evidence, you need belief in the correctness of an assertion. If you choose to state definitively that there is no god then you've taken a faith based position because you've picked something that cannot, by its very nature, be tested for and proclaimed an opinion on it.

Also I personally find it worth remembering that when dismissing something for lack of evidence to note that just because I do not find the evidence convincing doesn't intrinsically make it incorrect always. It simply means it was not enough to convince me which is a rather different proposition to saying there is no evidence.

@if ®afiq said:
"There is not a single tribe on Earth to whom a message has been sent"... so it is only inevitbale that we have so many variations leading to the same destination.
Click to expand...

Is that a direct quote from somewhere? If so it can be read a couple of different ways and the meaning changes vastly as it does so; either a message has been sent to multiple tribes or alternatively it hasn't been sent to a single tribe (i.e. no tribes have received a message).
 
jmhduck said:
I mean on one level there's actually zero evidence they existed. As a different point most respected historians agree that Jesus was a man who walked this earth.
Click to expand...

That isn't true. There is no proof that Jesus existed as a man, no historians of that time ever mentioned him. I believe the earliest mention was Joesephinus and he was talking about the Christian Cult's beliefs rather than the man himself.

It is probable that the gospels are based on the life of one man, but there is no actual evidence that he existed and that they are not a collection of stories about several preachers or entirely made up.
 
semi-pro waster said:
Is that a direct quote from somewhere? If so it can be read a couple of different ways and the meaning changes vastly as it does so; either a message has been sent to multiple tribes or alternatively it hasn't been sent to a single tribe (i.e. no tribes have received a message).
Click to expand...

That's just me doing a bad job of paraphrasing:

Qur'an said:
016.036YUSUFALI: For We assuredly sent amongst every People a messenger, (with the Command), "Serve Allah, and eschew Evil": of the People were some whom Allah guided, and some on whom error became inevitably (established). So travel through the earth, and see what was the end of those who denied (the Truth).
Click to expand...
 
RDM said:
That isn't true. There is no proof that Jesus existed as a man, no historians of that time ever mentioned him. I believe the earliest mention was Joesephinus and he was talking about the Christian Cult's beliefs rather than the man himself.
Click to expand...
I mean I guess I'd have to disagree when saying there's no proof as I'd just say the Bible or the Quran but I guess those aren't historically accurate to you ;). On the other hand how is anyone's existence proved from 2000 years ago? (I just don't know a lot about the topic as I'm not an expert in history from BC or AD for that matter).
 
semi-pro waster said:
I'm sure you are well aware but that is what makes religion a faith based position, you do not need evidence, you need belief in the correctness of an assertion. If you choose to state definitively that there is no god then you've taken a faith based position because you've picked something that cannot, by its very nature, be tested for and proclaimed an opinion on it.

Also I personally find it worth remembering that when dismissing something for lack of evidence to note that just because I do not find the evidence convincing doesn't intrinsically make it incorrect always. It simply means it was not enough to convince me which is a rather different proposition to saying there is no evidence.
Click to expand...

It's also worth noting that most people who hold belief in gods or whatever do not do it in the absence of evidence. It may not be evidence that is meaningful for others (for example, it may not be scientifically collectable evidence), but it is evidence none the less.
 
@if ®afiq said:
That's just me doing a bad job of paraphrasing:
Click to expand...

Ah right, I thought it seemed vaguely familiar but I'm not knowledgeable enough about the Qur'an to have put it into context. :)

jmhduck said:
I mean I guess I'd have to disagree when saying there's no proof as I'd just say the Bible or the Quran but I guess those aren't historically accurate to you ;). On the other hand how is anyone's existence proved from 2000 years ago? (I just don't know a lot about the topic as I'm not an expert in history from BC or AD for that matter).
Click to expand...

Mentions in historical texts by various contemporary figures would be the usual way that I know of, occasionally you might also rely on monuments/historical artifacts that were made for/by the person as well but that is obviously rarer and more difficult than a text which can be reprinted or copied relatively easily.

Dolph said:
It's also worth noting that most people who hold belief in gods or whatever do not do it in the absence of evidence. It may not be evidence that is meaningful for others (for example, it may not be scientifically collectable evidence), but it is evidence none the less.
Click to expand...

That is pretty much what I was trying to say but a bit more succinctly.
 
Dolph said:
It's also worth noting that most people who hold belief in gods or whatever do not do it in the absence of evidence. It may not be evidence that is meaningful for others (for example, it may not be scientifically collectable evidence), but it is evidence none the less.
Click to expand...

Non-scientifically collectable evidence cannot stand up under scrutiny. If you are referring to Qualia, personal experiences, then unfortunately it is fairly impossible to measure.

I understand you are cynical of the scientific process, but I am more cynical of the wishy-washy world of related personal experience. Thar be monsters in the great sea that swallow a ship whole!
 
jmhduck said:
I mean I guess I'd have to disagree when saying there's no proof as I'd just say the Bible or the Quran but I guess those aren't historically accurate to you ;). On the other hand how is anyone's existence proved from 2000 years ago? (I just don't know a lot about the topic as I'm not an expert in history from BC or AD for that matter).
Click to expand...

The problem with using the bible as proof is that for a start it isn't historically accurate and secondly was written (as most historians agree) some years after the alleged date of the crucifiction and then went through a quite serious editing process several hundred years after the crucifiction. It has little validity as a historical document. That's not to say it isn't true, but we know it is inaccurate (from a historical point of view) and that it is not backed up by other historical documents (specifically talking about the New Testament here as it relates to Christ). The Koran is even less useful as it is written 600 years after Christ's crucifiction and likely uses the bible as it's source document (or the divine utterences of God through his prophet depending upon your personal beliefs).

How do you prove the existence of someone from 2000 years ago? Via the many documents written in that time and copied by later historians generally. The Romans for example were prolific writers.
 
Shoseki said:
Non-scientifically collectable evidence cannot stand up under scrutiny. If you are referring to Qualia, personal experiences, then unfortunately it is fairly impossible to measure.

I understand you are cynical of the scientific process, but I am more cynical of the wishy-washy world of related personal experience. Thar be monsters in the great sea that swallow a ship whole!
Click to expand...

I'm not cynical of the scientific process, I'm cynical of treating the scientific process as being something greater than it was designed for, or being appropriate for every situation concievable, which is an entirely different argument.

If I hear someone playing the piano like a virtuoso, but when I try and get them to play for others, they play the first three bars of greensleeves badly, does that mean they are incapable of playing better?

You also need to remember that I consider religion and faith to be a personal thing, rather than something that you have to convince others of, and as such, personal evidence is absolutely fine for helping define a personal view. My beliefs do not require yours and all that.

I'm against others using their beliefs as a cudgel to surpress the discovery of others, and scientific absolutists are among the worst for doing that these days, just as at one time the christian church shut down all debate, now there are a great number of the scientific faithful determined to do the same.
 
Last edited:
Dolph said:
There's nothing illogical about it, because logic is applied after assumptions and data collection. What you can't understand is some of the assumptions christians believe to be true (I'm right there with you incidentally) and therefore you cannot come to the same conclusion they do through the application of logic.

You have faith in assumptions to be true as well, if you believe the scientific explaination of the world, but they are different assumptions that seem more sensible to you.



But the vast majority of religions (including a fair number of christians) do not believe anything that conflicts directly with what is scientificially demonstratable, especially if they take an allegorical, rather than literal interpretation of the bible, or believe in one of the many other spiritual ideas that really don't have the same sorts of stories invovled in them at all.

Faith and scientific belief are not mutually incompatible in the vast majority of cases, so coming to terms with tangible aspects of reality does nothing to change the vast majority of faith, because they weren't in conflict in the first place, especially when you interpret the science correctly as to what the scientific method is actually telling you.
Click to expand...

I see....I think. I mean, Im always going to find it hard to understand, but I appreciate your explainations anyway.
 
What I dont understand is the thing about Good and evil. In order for someone to appear "Good" you have to an evil opposite to compare it to. So if 'God' creates everyone and what not, he then must have created evil...?

So why would he create evil people?? After all they are still 'people'..?

Im just very confused by it all, there appears to be so many little contradictions riddled throughout all religions. Perhaps there is a God and perhaps there isn't, I like to sit on the fence on this one :)

I'm a good person, I do good things and also volunteer for charities ... yet I'm not a "religious church goer", so does that mean I won't float up to 'heaven' when I die?? :confused: Hmm, religion just confuses me - perhaps I have a small brain :p
 
Dolph said:
The aquaduct?

:D
Click to expand...

Brian2.jpg

"Alright, but apart from the aquaduct, sanitation, roads, medecine........." :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom