Seems to me very similar to the "I'm rubber and you're glue" argument. But then again, maybe I'm wrong.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Seems to me very similar to the "I'm rubber and you're glue" argument. But then again, maybe I'm wrong.
A Vestigial Mote
Well-Known Member
I guess it is completely fine if people don't care about what is true and don't understand epistemology and the nature of evidence enough to actually be able to pursue or discern what is true versus not, and then go on to propagate information that may as well be bad information for all the actual investigation they have done (or are able to do) to actually come to the conclusions they have somehow otherwise reached. Sounds just peachy.
That's a challenging thread.
Btw...I love Dawkins...it is just that he should be less emotional.
I would have answered, if I had been at his place:
" Well...Descartes used to say "Do doubt anything"...but in this case the probability of the evolutionary process (and the theory itself) is so high that we can conclude it is almost a solid pillar of certainty in biology"...
Btw.... I am seeing how Creationism is tolerated in the US...so admirable....
In my country, if a person challenged Dawkins on Evolution ...they would be ostracized after 5 seconds...
Btw...I love Dawkins...it is just that he should be less emotional.
I would have answered, if I had been at his place:
" Well...Descartes used to say "Do doubt anything"...but in this case the probability of the evolutionary process (and the theory itself) is so high that we can conclude it is almost a solid pillar of certainty in biology"...
Btw.... I am seeing how Creationism is tolerated in the US...so admirable....
In my country, if a person challenged Dawkins on Evolution ...they would be ostracized after 5 seconds...
Is being the one that decides what "truth(s)" others need to know a self-appointed position, or are such people appointed by others?
You have to risk being wrong. It is the only way, IMO, you can open yourself up to learning.
"What if you are wrong"? If I am wrong, then I will learn that I was wrong. You can't be afraid to be wrong because if you are you will never test what you assume to be right about.
A Vestigial Mote
Well-Known Member
What is able to be discerned as "true" usually speaks for itself. And if it doesn't, that's when EVERYONE need be wary.
It sure does. And if everyone shared the same experiences, everyone would have the same "truth."
ecco
Veteran Member
Let's accept that it is possible that the One-Real-True-God is not the Judeo-Christian God that you believe in and accept.
That God might look at me and perhaps admire the fact that I wasn't taken in by the propaganda for Jesus or Allah or Buddha. He might reward me with 100,000 years in a pretty heavenly place. After that, I would cease to exist.
That God might look at you as being a fool because you were taken in to believe in false gods. He might reward you with 100,000 years in a pretty hellish place. After that, you would cease to exist.
Let's accept that it is possible that the One-Real-True-God created everything and everyone Last Thursday. He might make you and me cease to exist when we die.
It really isn't worth wasting too much time in these silly speculations, is it?
Audie
Veteran Member
No consequences?
If you did not notice I mentioned Pascale wager AND noted the loss to theists who throw away
their effort on nonsense, why do you reply at all?
Audie
Veteran Member
PureX
Veteran Member
You need someone like me to be so superior and condescending to. It's clearly important to you, and means nothing to me. So ... you're welcome.
A Vestigial Mote
Well-Known Member
Which is exactly why I feel we can really only count as immediately "true" those things that are shared between us. And this is precisely why there exists the notion of evidence at all - at least admit that to yourself. As soon as an item is not immediately sharable, it exists as a "true for you" proposition until we have some way to verify otherwise. Innocent until proven guilty, for example. If all your fluffy talk indicated how our systems actually work, then it would be "guilty, and maybe we'll even stop to think about it."
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
I picked no because his rebuttal doesn't take into consideration the contextual nature of the christian god. It also attributes some atheists definition of god (what they were taught or concluded) as what all christians believe in but not taking into consideration themselves that god isn't what christians say it (loving, justice, all that) is but what christians say they experience.
I don't care for popular "atheists" arguments. I don't think I've heard of a good atheist rebuttal, to tell you honestly. There is always focus on god being some guy in the sky shooting rocket cannons.
Well, I think his point is that nobody actually knows anything about this. he could be wrong, but so could the Christian or the Muslim, or the believer in the great Juju.
In a situation like this, the best approach is either to admit nobody knows one way or the other OR to note that we are usually quite happy saying that those who believe in the great Juju are wrong, but by extension so is everyone else.
The point is that it is impossible for all of these beliefs to be correct, but it is quite easy for them all to be wrong. And, without any data to distinguish them, it is more reasonable to think that they are all fictitious.
Is all evidence objective?
If there really is a God -- one like that described by most of the religious people in the world -- I would think it excessively unlikely that such a deity would hold it against anyone to have been honestly wrong, after having carefully examined all the available evidence. (Not the hear-say -- the evidence.)
So nothing to worry about.
So nothing to worry about.
Is ANY evidence for deities objective? Or even evidence?
Audie
Veteran Member
Christians seem to have had a long obsession with trying to convert the Chinese.Dear Audie
This made me laugh, because I was just about to say that I cannot see myself discovering that I have been wrong and thinking: I really wish I had spent my life on worldly achievements and aimed at acquiring influence, power and a whole bunch of possessions to tie me down with; I so regret not having been greedier and more self-centred.
Also, I have never heard anyone say that they believe in God in case there is one. It does not make much sense to me to turn this question in that manner.
Humbly
Hermit
Personally, I have had many many of them try to
win me to "god", and i had the pascal thing
used on me before I knew what to call it.
I'm not convinced you know what it is.
Different experiences. Maybe you never heard anyone
express any thought at all along those lines. I have,
though nobody expressed Pascals as you did,
the illogic of that being too much for anyone, probably.
Now, as for your odd strawman about
piling riches, where is that supposed to have
come from? Nothing i stated or implied.
If you see only (exaggerating) the monastic or the
miserly life as possibilities, maybe think a bit more?
You don't think all there is for an atheist is
an accounts ledger-do you?
If you feel that no religious practice no matter
how extreme or costly could be a waste,
we disagree on that and so be it.
If tho you are laughing at me on the basis that I
am arguing for a self indulgent life of greed
an unconcern for others that is another matter.
For if so, it speaks only of you, that you
would so much as conceive of it, let alone present it.
And what it says of the spiritual lessons you
have internalized is not too cool either.
Or maybe you would like to clarify that
you did not actually mean what you said.
Last edited: