Serious question for atheists
0
Kalistean wrote...
Reasoning for why I believe in God? There are plenty of reasons for it. I look at the complexity of the world, all the variety of life, all the beauty that we can see. There has to be a reason that we have this. That we even exist. You can go on all about the how of everything. But that will never explain the why. It can't. Sure, you could suggest that there is no why as your explaination, but that doesn't mean there isn't a reason to believe there COULD be a why.
Is not beauty in the eye of the beholder or basically an opinion? I find our world to be rather rotten, unpleasant and generally full of malice. Argument from beauty neglects this concept. Also, how does this negate any other possible gods from existing? One could certainly believe in numerous pagan gods and still have an explanation for this "why."
0
Takerial
Lovable Teddy Bear
I did read his post.
And I never said that answering the why could only lead to one belief, beliefs themselves are there to answer the why.
And beauty was only one aspect I mentioned, way to focus on it. It was more on the fact that, why are we even able to feel certain emotions if they have no biological reason?
And I never said that answering the why could only lead to one belief, beliefs themselves are there to answer the why.
And beauty was only one aspect I mentioned, way to focus on it. It was more on the fact that, why are we even able to feel certain emotions if they have no biological reason?
0
You are still asking questions which are difficult to answer in a concrete and factual way. Things like "why are we even able to feel certain emotions if they have no biological reason?" is biased against your opposition since their side clearly wouldn't assert on the type of 'definite' and/or 'wholesome' answers religion can offer. Comparison-wise, "It's random" sounds less persuasive than "Because god loves us".
tl;dr: the question is rigged
added comment: i would love for god(or insert any other supreme being) to be real; if only he would appear before me, then i can start completing the achievements required for me to get onto the right side of my afterlife(if any).
tl;dr: the question is rigged
added comment: i would love for god(or insert any other supreme being) to be real; if only he would appear before me, then i can start completing the achievements required for me to get onto the right side of my afterlife(if any).
0
Kalistean wrote...
I did read his post.And I never said that answering the why could only lead to one belief, beliefs themselves are there to answer the why.
And beauty was only one aspect I mentioned, way to focus on it. It was more on the fact that, why are we even able to feel certain emotions if they have no biological reason?
Okay, well I'll give credit where its due with the above statement. I come across more than a few people that say otherwise. MY RELIGION ONLY! Everything else is bullshit but mine! You know how that goes.
Biological reason? Well you could make a case that things like love are to ultimately protect family/friends and propagate the continued survival of humanity etc. I'm assuming you mean more along those lines then RAEG, Anger, etc.
0
Takerial
Lovable Teddy Bear
kgods wrote...
Kalistean wrote...
I did read his post.And I never said that answering the why could only lead to one belief, beliefs themselves are there to answer the why.
And beauty was only one aspect I mentioned, way to focus on it. It was more on the fact that, why are we even able to feel certain emotions if they have no biological reason?
Okay, well I'll give credit where its due with the above statement. I come across more than a few people that say otherwise. MY RELIGION ONLY! Everything else is bullshit but mine! You know how that goes.
Biological reason? Well you could make a case that things like love are to ultimately protect family/friends and propagate the continued survival of humanity etc. I'm assuming you mean more along those lines then RAEG, Anger, etc.
0
Kalistean wrote...
Yes, Science does require faith. This is because you cannot, without a doubt, prove anything in Science.The moment you said this you immediately took away any chance you had at winning in any argument pertaining to this topic. Just stop.
0
Takerial
Lovable Teddy Bear
catfish wrote...
Kalistean wrote...
Yes, Science does require faith. This is because you cannot, without a doubt, prove anything in Science.The moment you said this you immediately took away any chance you had at winning in any argument pertaining to this topic. Just stop.
By what reasoning?
Do you think everything in Science is there because it was proven without a doubt?
0
Kalistean wrote...
catfish wrote...
Kalistean wrote...
Yes, Science does require faith. This is because you cannot, without a doubt, prove anything in Science.The moment you said this you immediately took away any chance you had at winning in any argument pertaining to this topic. Just stop.
By what reasoning?
Do you think everything in Science is there because it was proven without a doubt?
chaosbreak wrote...
perhaps you should read rbz's post again?Kalistean wrote...
I did read his post.But you just didn't get it.
0
Kalistean wrote...
Empirical evidence does not decrease the amount of faith you have. In fact, the more you rely on empirical evidence the more faith you need to have in that the system you have works.You know when I mentioned the irrational thought process you have when discussing these kinds of topics? This is proof of it! What you said is fucking crazy. Empirical evidence is what you observe. You know that monitor you're looking at as you read this? You have empirical evidence of its existence. You don't need faith to know it exists because you're fucking looking at it. You can touch it and measure it. It doesn't matter if you can't prove it "real" metaphysically, the point is no matter how many times you look at it, it's there.
0
Takerial
Lovable Teddy Bear
I said relied on.
That means that using the observation to prove something, not what the observation actually is.
You want an example?
You watch an apple fall to the earth after you release it. You can use this empirical evidence to show gravity.
But you have to have faith that the scientific process of using this to show things is accurate.
Got it?
That means that using the observation to prove something, not what the observation actually is.
You want an example?
You watch an apple fall to the earth after you release it. You can use this empirical evidence to show gravity.
But you have to have faith that the scientific process of using this to show things is accurate.
Got it?
0
Rbz, calm down. I dont think he actually knows what the words "faith" and "proof" mean. I mean, just look at how he uses them! We'll have to get for dat edumacation to kick in before any more discussion can roll in.
0
catfish wrote...
Rbz, calm down.No way, I'm enjoying myself too much.
Kalistean wrote...
But you have to have faith that the scientific process of using this to show things is accurate.Using faith as loosely like that so it simply means to trust something is not the same way faith is used to describe religious beliefs. Yea, I have faith in the scientific process because it has been shown to be a reliable method of knowing (again, NOT metaphysically, but it doesn't matter). But believing in the products of science or their validity is NOT faith the way religious people have faith in their beliefs. Faith = belief without justification/evidence. It is irrational. Science has evidence. People don't have faith in the products of science, but they may have faith in the scientific method. The two times that I used faith in the previous sentence, they each meant different things.
0
Takerial
Lovable Teddy Bear
It does make me laugh, that you guess can't even think of observing something from another point of view because you don't want to accept the possibility that "Hey these could be similar."
Edit: The VERY FACT that you have to have faith is the point I'm making.
You go on about how it is irrational and all because it is designed on faith. But that is the point I'm making, the Scientific Process also requires faith in it for Science to work.
You can't go "Well it's not as much. Or it's a different type." No, it is still there no matter how much you try to disguise it. You have to have that faith.
So if Religion is irrational, then Science is at the very least partially irrational too.
You can't have both, it's one or the other.
Edit: The VERY FACT that you have to have faith is the point I'm making.
You go on about how it is irrational and all because it is designed on faith. But that is the point I'm making, the Scientific Process also requires faith in it for Science to work.
You can't go "Well it's not as much. Or it's a different type." No, it is still there no matter how much you try to disguise it. You have to have that faith.
So if Religion is irrational, then Science is at the very least partially irrational too.
You can't have both, it's one or the other.
0
Kalistean wrote...
So if Religion is irrational, then Science is at the very least partially irrational too.So you're saying: it's both.
Kalistean wrote...
You can't have both, it's one or the other.And here you say: it can't be both.
Make up your mind.
Having faith in something literally means that it cannot be proven, you just choose to believe it anyway. That is irrational, but doesn't have to be a bad thing.
Science on the other hand, is completely rational. There is no room for assuming things. Either you know it for sure or you don't.
The reason people believe 2+2=4 isn't because it seems probable. It's because it can be proven.
You use the word "faith" for both science and religion, which is a pretty stupid thing to do.
If you go to a scientist and ask that person if he/she has faith in the methods used for research, they will most likely say "yes".
Sure, they should have said "I don't just have faith in it, I'm sure of it". But that's a bother. And you're also, as the scientist, going along with what the interviewer said. "Being friendly" it is called.
Assuming that their use of the word "faith" means they have faith in the same sense that religious people have faith in their god, is complete nonsense.
The word "faith" isn't patented by religion. People can use it to describe non-religious things, even things that are meant to be deconstructive to religion.
0
Takerial
Lovable Teddy Bear
You took what I said out of context.
Though I suppose I should clarify. When I said he can't have both, I meant he can't have Religion be irrational and Science be rational.
There is similarities between them that you can't deny.
And I like how you say you either know it for sure or you don't.
You don't EVER know anything in science 100%. EVER.
And your 2 + 2 = 4 is also funny.
Because you CAN make it add up to a different number. I forget the process but my brother has shown me it before. Of course you're using pretty high level math to even do that.
Though I suppose I should clarify. When I said he can't have both, I meant he can't have Religion be irrational and Science be rational.
There is similarities between them that you can't deny.
And I like how you say you either know it for sure or you don't.
You don't EVER know anything in science 100%. EVER.
And your 2 + 2 = 4 is also funny.
Because you CAN make it add up to a different number. I forget the process but my brother has shown me it before. Of course you're using pretty high level math to even do that.
0
mibuchiha
Fakku Elder
Kalistean wrote...
Because you CAN make it add up to a different number. I forget the process but my brother has shown me it before. Of course you're using pretty high level math to even do that.Way to make yourself look stupid. Show the proof. Mathematicians all over the world will happily try to find the fallacy in it.
0
Takerial
Lovable Teddy Bear
It involves using certain mathematical proofs. It takes a lot of time and effort to do, and it is pretty much pointless.
As I did not go the mathematical route like my brother did, I do not know what is necessary to perform it, I have just seen it before and know it is possible.
You could ask a math professor if you want clarification.
As I did not go the mathematical route like my brother did, I do not know what is necessary to perform it, I have just seen it before and know it is possible.
You could ask a math professor if you want clarification.
0
mibuchiha
Fakku Elder
If your bro really is someone in the field of math, I'm gonna assume he showed you that just to laugh his ass off seeing you actually believe that. AFAIK all "proofs" of that sort has one or more fallacy in it, and actually is false.
Read this.
http://mathforum.org/dr.math/faq/faq.false.proof.html
Read this.
http://mathforum.org/dr.math/faq/faq.false.proof.html
0
Takerial
Lovable Teddy Bear
Meh, I take it as either he was shown wrong or that this particular person disproving things is not showing everything.
*shrugs*
*shrugs*