This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Why Your Religion?
Return to board index
Post by
TheMediator
If you believe that there is an actually possibility of there being mermaids, despite there being no evidence, then I think you are rather silly.
If you believe that there is an actual possibility of there being no mermaids, despite there being no evidence, then I think you are rather silly.
The lack of mermaids today or any fossil record of them seems to provide strong evidence that there aren't mermaids. Now, we can't say without a doubt that their aren't mermaids, but we can say beyond a
reasonable
doubt. Just like we can say beyond a
reasonable
doubt that God doesn't exist. Still, evidence may emerge later that may support the existence of mermaids or God so I'm not going to say God doesn't exist, only that I believe he doesn't exist based on the evidence that is currently exists.
Just like my conspiracy theory about giant fluffy bunnies - do you now have to consider my hypothesis legitimate simply because it may or may not be true? No. You don't believe it to be true, and it would be rather silly too. That's what he simply means - it is silly to believe something in spite of the evidence.
Let's say I have a deck of 52 cards. I look at each card beforehand to check if its a standard deck, and it is. I shuffle the deck, then draw a card without looking at the card. I get a cell phone call, look down at my cell phone, and block the call. I look back up at the deck of cards and draw another. Should I believe that the two cards are the same? They probably aren't - there's a chance my roommate could have come into the room while I wasn't looking, looked at the card I had, then pulled out another deck cards and put that same card onto the top of the deck, then left while I wasn't looking... but should I believe that happened? No. I can't say beyond all doubt they aren't the same, but I can be reasonably certain. When I say the cards aren't the same, as a logical and rational person I mean I am reasonably certain that the cards aren't the same - I'm in an agnostic, but I might as well be an atheist since I see that the probability of there being a god is rather low.
Post by
Adamsm
I've looked at different religions, but I am always drawn back to Mormonism. It just seems to click with me like nothing else can.
That's how I feel about my decision to follow Buddhism, Wicca and Hinduism; they work with my view on life.
Post by
Squishalot
Mediator - do you believe in quantum randomness, or unobserved variables?
Post by
TheMediator
Mediator - do you believe in quantum randomness, or unobserved variables?
As a statistician at heart, I definitely lean towards unobserved variables to explain apparent "random" outcomes. I think that quantum randomness is likely due to some even smaller and less measurable force (I assume you're referring to the experiment where they shot particles in an apparently controlled environment repeatedly and there was spread to them), but still a predictable force if we could get down onto that level.
Post by
260787
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
Mediator - do you believe in quantum randomness, or unobserved variables?
As a statistician at heart, I definitely lean towards unobserved variables to explain apparent "random" outcomes. I think that quantum randomness is likely due to some even smaller and less measurable force (I assume you're referring to the experiment where they shot particles in an apparently controlled environment repeatedly and there was spread to them), but still a predictable force if we could get down onto that level.
So despite the fact that it's not measurable and not observable, you're satisfied that this unobservable and currently unprovable variable
must be
(edit: is likely to be) what causes the outcome?
Because, I would imagine, that's how a religious person justifies the existance of the unobservable and currently unprovable God.
Post by
Skreeran
Mediator - do you believe in quantum randomness, or unobserved variables?
As a statistician at heart, I definitely lean towards unobserved variables to explain apparent "random" outcomes. I think that quantum randomness is likely due to some even smaller and less measurable force (I assume you're referring to the experiment where they shot particles in an apparently controlled environment repeatedly and there was spread to them), but still a predictable force if we could get down onto that level.
So despite the fact that it's not measurable and not observable, you're satisfied that this unobservable and currently unprovable variable
must be
(edit: is likely to be) what causes the outcome?
Because, I would imagine, that's how a religious person justifies the existance of the unobservable and currently unprovable God.I think the difference is: We do not claim to know what this force is, and are seeking to discover and measure it.
Religious people tend to claim to know exactly what it is and what it wants.
Post by
Squishalot
I think the difference is: We do not claim to know what this force is, and are seeking to discover and measure it.
Religious people tend to claim to know exactly what it is and what it wants.
Not really, it's not quite as black and white as that.
We theorise what this force is, and though we seek to discover and measure it, we also take it for granted that it exists.
Religious people theorise what God is, and continually seek to discover more about Him, and take it for granted that He exists.
It's not that terribly different.
Post by
Skreeran
I think the difference is: We do not claim to know what this force is, and are seeking to discover and measure it.
Religious people tend to claim to know exactly what it is and what it wants.
Not really, it's not quite as black and white as that.
We theorise what this force is, and though we seek to discover and measure it, we also take it for granted that it exists.
Religious people theorise what God is, and continually seek to discover more about Him, and take it for granted that He exists.
It's not that terribly different.Please read my post again. As far as I know, no scientist claims to know exactly what this force is until it can be measured or observed.
I addition, no one says that this unidentified force defies the other laws, as far as I know.
Post by
470626
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
I think the difference is: We do not claim to know what this force is, and are seeking to discover and measure it.
Religious people tend to claim to know exactly what it is and what it wants.
Not really, it's not quite as black and white as that.
We theorise what this force is, and though we seek to discover and measure it, we also take it for granted that it exists.
Religious people theorise what God is, and continually seek to discover more about Him, and take it for granted that He exists.
It's not that terribly different.Please read my post again. As far as I know, no scientist claims to know exactly what this force is until it can be measured or observed.
I addition, no one says that this unidentified force defies the other laws, as far as I know.
The existance of *a God* (not necessarily the Judeo-Christian God) doesn't defy the laws of physics. The Flying Spaghetti Monster, if he exists, breaks no rules of physics.
When I say that it's not terribly different, what I mean is that the scientists claim to have a theory of what the force is, and
they continue to work on the assumption that their theory is right
. Religious people do the same thing.
Most religious people don't claim to know 'exactly' what God is. Look at what Queggy has said - God is unknowable, we can't possibly understand him in his entirety. This is equivalent to a scientist saying "we don't know exactly how this works, but we're pretty sure it works this way", if you ask me.
But the reason I won't justify atheism is because it's difficult, and some of you posters have... a reputation ;)
That's a bit unfair :) No, seriously - come join in the discussion. Your thoughts are more than welcome.
Post by
260787
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Skreeran
I think the difference is: We do not claim to know what this force is, and are seeking to discover and measure it.
Religious people tend to claim to know exactly what it is and what it wants.
Not really, it's not quite as black and white as that.
We theorise what this force is, and though we seek to discover and measure it, we also take it for granted that it exists.
Religious people theorise what God is, and continually seek to discover more about Him, and take it for granted that He exists.
It's not that terribly different.Please read my post again. As far as I know, no scientist claims to know exactly what this force is until it can be measured or observed.
I addition, no one says that this unidentified force defies the other laws, as far as I know.
The existance of *a God* (not necessarily the Judeo-Christian God) doesn't defy the laws of physics. The Flying Spaghetti Monster, if he exists, breaks no rules of physics.
When I say that it's not terribly different, what I mean is that the scientists claim to have a theory of what the force is, and
they continue to work on the assumption that their theory is right
. Religious people do the same thing.
Most religious people don't claim to know 'exactly' what God is. Look at what Queggy has said - God is unknowable, we can't possibly understand him in his entirety. This is equivalent to a scientist saying "we don't know exactly how this works, but we're pretty sure it works this way", if you ask me.When you say that god thinks homosexuality is a sin, that he wants burnt offerings, or that he sent his son to die for us, you are claiming that your know more about him that our scientist friends are claiming they know about any mysterious force.
Post by
Squishalot
When you say that god thinks homosexuality is a sin, that he wants burnt offerings, or that he sent his son to die for us, you are claiming that your know more about him that our scientist friends are claiming they know about any mysterious force.
Think about what the LHC is supposed to discover about the so-called 'God Particle', about the claims that scientists make about how it will solve all the unresolved questions about the universe and its makeup, then try to claim that scientists don't make claims about any mysterious force.
Post by
MyTie
If you so chose not to become a Christian because I can't prove Christianity, then that is your choice. As for the 'burden of proof', such a thing doesn't exist. It's a religon, not a trial.Of course it is! If I tell you that there is a flying spaghetti monster floating about in the Andromeda galaxy, you can't possibly disprove it. Does that mean that it's a legitimate claim? Of course not! I have no proof of my claim! What proof do you have of your claim?
If I told my daughter her bedtime was at 8:30 tonite, she could ask me to provide proof. Wouldn't change anything. It's not something to be proved or disproved. She will go to bed tonite at 8:30. She could choose to believe otherwise, since I can provide no scientific evidence. She would then have the consequences of her decisions based on her beliefs.
Same with religion. This 'provide proof or else' attitude makes me say 'or else what'. Or else you won't believe? Ok. Suit yourself.
Post by
Skreeran
If you so chose not to become a Christian because I can't prove Christianity, then that is your choice. As for the 'burden of proof', such a thing doesn't exist. It's a religon, not a trial.Of course it is! If I tell you that there is a flying spaghetti monster floating about in the Andromeda galaxy, you can't possibly disprove it. Does that mean that it's a legitimate claim? Of course not! I have no proof of my claim! What proof do you have of your claim?
If I told my daughter her bedtime was at 8:30 tonite, she could ask me to provide proof. Wouldn't change anything. It's not something to be proved or disproved. She will go to bed tonite at 8:30. She could choose to believe otherwise, since I can provide no scientific evidence. She would then have the consequences of her decisions based on her beliefs.
Same with religion. This 'provide proof or else' attitude makes me say 'or else what'. Or else you won't believe? Ok. Suit yourself.If you have no proof, then what makes you believe?
And moreover, why should anyone have to conform to your beliefs?
And don't tell me that christians don't try. Same-sex marriage is still a hotly debated topic, just because religious people think homosexuality is wrong.
In addition, why should I respect your beliefs if they have no backing to them?
Post by
MyTie
There is no 'burden of proof' because there is no 'trial', other than the trial that is in your own mind, and that must be settled by who? By you. That is why I will do nothing to present evidence and cross examine. It is your responsibility to search for the truth yourself. No one else's responsibility to do it. It is you who must deal with the consequences, if there are any. If I were you, I would be searching for the truth with hunger.
Post by
MyTie
And don't tell me that christians don't try. Same-sex marriage is still a hotly debated topic, just because religious people think homosexuality is wrong.
I cannot account for the actions of everyone who claims they are Christian.
In addition, why should I respect your beliefs if they have no backing to them?I'm not asking you to. Disrespect me all you want. It will not change a single thing for me. You see, your beliefs don't have anything to do with me. They have to do with you. So, stop making it about me, or sam joe preacher, or politician X, or anyone.
Post by
Squishalot
In addition, why should I respect your beliefs if they have no backing to them?
Because respect for other people is 'right', irrespective of their beliefs. :)
Post by
150529
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post Reply
This topic is locked. You cannot post a reply.