Does god hate scientists?

[Shane Roach]

Wait, so because I can't show you my consciousness you prove your argument?

Me : Can't proof consciousness

You: Can't proof conscioueness AND you can't proof your god.

2-1.
I win.



To say we start of with a religious state and therefore everyone who doesn't belief needs to proof your invisible man up in the sky is just hilarious.
You admit you can't proof god. Yet you seriously think it's weird Atheists don't just take your word for it?

Once again, you're clearly an american inside his protective religious bubble. The rest of the world aka reality proves your argument wrong.

- Ectezus

I don't claim we start with a religious state.

 

[Ectezus]

The only point I am making is that the assertion that the default belief concerning spirituality is NOT the atheistic presupposition that there is no such thing.

but to simply dismiss all of spirituality without a firm reason for doing so is not based on superior logic.

Your assumption that your beliefs require no backing is false

If I don't believe that pink unicorns exist I don't need evidence that backs up this assumption other than the TOTAL LACK OF EVIDENCE.
For one simple reason; it's impossible to prove something non-existant to be non-existant because there is and never will be evidence.

It's called being a skeptic. We don't believe everything to have equal value just because it's unknown. We don't belief in the flying spaghetti monster for a good reason.

- Ectezus

 

[Shane Roach]

If I don't believe that pink unicorns exist I don't need evidence that backs up this assumption other than the TOTAL LACK OF EVIDENCE.
For one simple reason; it's impossible to prove something non-existant to be non-existant because there is and never will be evidence.

It's called being a skeptic. We don't believe everything to have equal value just because it's unknown. We don't belief in the flying spaghetti monster for a good reason.

- Ectezus

I imagine the vast majority of people doubt that pink unicorns exist, but there is an underlying philosophical reason why it is impossible to prove something does not exist. Epistemology.

You, on the other hand, mis-state the case to say that there is not nor will there ever be any evidence. You've actually been confronted with the beginnings of the massive amounts of evidence there are, and why the scientific method cannot be brought to bear effectively on the subject, but you do not appear to understand it. That does not make you right and everyone who disagrees with you wrong. That just means you don't understand what people are saying to you, and furthermore anyone who watches how you are responding knows this.

 

[Ectezus]

Way to ignore the whole "I don't claim we start with a religious state." thing when I demonstrate that's exactly what you imply.

You've actually been confronted with the beginnings of the massive amounts of evidence there are, and why the scientific method cannot be brought to bear effectively on the subject, but you do not appear to understand it.

Ah great, yet another "The evidence is so obvious!!! You're so stupid for not seeing it" argument.
Way to ignore the entire topic's point.

***
The fact of the matter is that there IS a large group of people who operate on the basis of "first evidence to proof it, then I'll base my life upon it".
God should know this when he supposedly gave everyone free will. Yet he punishes those people and rewards gullibility.
***

That's the point! You can say that scientists are stupid for demanding evidence first before they believe in a magic man in the sky but that doesn't change the fact that your all-loving god punishes those people for apostasy despite them living a normal healthy life and help advance all technology you and I both benefit from every day.

There obviously is not concrete evidence for god. If that was the case there wouldn't be any non-christians. All Muslims, Hindu's and Atheists would convert on the spot.
It might seem christianity rules the world in your religious bubble of America. But at least twice as much people disagree with that. Every religion is a minority because everyone else thinks they are crazy.

- Ectezus

 

[ebia]

***
The fact of the matter is that there IS a large group of people who operate on the basis of "first evidence to proof it, then I'll base my life upon it".

It might be more accurate to say that there is a signficant group who claim (even believe) that they are doing that. But if they examined the fundamentals of their own philosophy and epistimology that would find that doesn't hold water. It's only because that philosophy and epistimology is so bound up in their current culture and almost never made explicit they can kid themselves into this naieve view of their own world-view.

 

[Ectezus]

It might be more accurate to say that there is a signficant group who claim (even believe) that they are doing that. But if they examined the fundamentals of their own philosophy and epistimology that would find that doesn't hold water. It's only because that philosophy and epistimology is so bound up in their current culture and almost never made explicit they can kid themselves into this naieve view of their own world-view.

Yeah there are no homosexuals either, just heterosexuals that sin right?
If you want to give it another name so you can label them in a different, more negative way go right ahead, whatever floats your boat. It still changes nothing on the original point.

 

[ebia]

Yeah there are no homosexuals either, just heterosexuals that sin right?
If you want to give it another name so you can label them in a different, more negative way go right ahead, whatever floats your boat. It still changes nothing on the original point.

It does change the point - there is no one that actually does what you claim; believe only that which has been shown to be true by "objective evidence". Those who claim to do so tend to be amongst those who have critically examined their own epistimology the least. A bit of meta-cognition would show that such a claim is at best hopelessly naieve.

Everyone is necessary selective about basis they use for different things. The real question in any situation is 'what is appropriate for this sort of question of this sort of importance in this sort of context?' Trying to use one tool for all questions is as doomed to failure as trying to build a car equipped only with a hammer.

 

[Ectezus]

Ebia, you sound like Dad with his same/past-state theory that eliminates every piece of evidence that he doesn't aprove.
You think you can just ignore the entire subject by simply not confirming the existence of certain people that want evidence first before they make up their mind about something.
Wow... thats a new low

I'm not going to argue on something so absolutely basic. That would be like me saying there is no such thing as faith.
It's really funny how every single answer so far doesn't address the issue and everyone tries to either convince me there is a god or they dance around the question. You could still answer the OP question with your own definition yet you didn't.

"There are no people who base their decisions on evidence, they are just 'delusional'"
Great point Ebia! Absolutely genius. If you really believe those people don't exist then fine, don't post here, this topic isn't for you.
Good day sir.

- Ectezus

 

[ebia]

Ebia, you sound like Dad with his same/past-state theory that eliminates every piece of evidence that he doesn't aprove.
You think you can just ignore the entire subject by simply not confirming the existence of certain people that want evidence first before they make up their mind about something.

I acknowledge that there are people that demand that kind of evidence for this, but I'm trying to point out that nobody actually demands evidence before believing anything. All people are selective about what criterion they set before taking on different things. If such people examined their own epistimology critically they would realise that there are all sorts of things they had made their minds up about with anything resembling external evidence - many of them things quite fundamental and foundational to their entire world-view.

Anybody who says "I only believe things that have been objectively evidenced" is saying something untrue - they are either mistaken or lying.

"There are no people who base their decisions on evidence, they are just 'delusional'"

There are no people that base all their decisions entirely on evidence. Anyone who thinks so is hopelessly naive and needs to do a bit or reading on epistimology/

 

[Ectezus]

I acknowledge that there are people that demand that kind of evidence for this

Good.

but I'm trying to point out that nobody actually demands evidence before believing anything. All people are selective about what criterion they set before taking on different things.

This applies to everyone equally so no offence but this point is extremely trivial.
It's basic stuff, you can argue that there is no 100% unbiased opinion and the closest thing we can get is 95% because we always start off with some kind of idea before evidence. That however does not change anything about my statement about certain people that have a mindset that demands evidence. You and I both know a difference exists between people on how much or what kind of evidence they demand before changing their mind.


- Ectezus

 

[Belk]

Theists do not have a "burden of proof". I am aware I have a spiritual natures. If you are going to tell me that that nature is just illusory, then it is your burden of proof.

In debates burden of proof is on the one making a positive claim since there is no way to prove that something does not exist. The best that can be done is to cite a lack of evidence, which is of course not conclusive proof unless there is a specified data set under discussion.

As I said, that's why spiritual views predominate. Simply citing some situations where something counter intuitive turned out to be true does not make a strong case for always guessing counter intuitively.

Anyhow, your answer is no different in substance than the one from the OP's. You have decided you need no proof to believe what you believe.

Huh? My not believing in something requires no proof. I, much like yourself I would assume, was told of an idea and told certain things in evidence of this idea. I did not find the evidence convincing so I do not believe the idea. You apparently found the evidence to be convincing.

A 'lack of belief' means a lack of opinion, not an opinion to the negative, which is what atheism is in my experience, despite many atheists claiming otherwise, usually for pretty obvious reasons of perceived rhetorical benefit on an online forum.

No a lack of belief means I did not find the evidence presented in support of the idea credible. Therefore I do not believe in the idea. A lack of opinion would indicate something I have not formed an opinion on. I have thought about the idea and come to an opinion.

It's just a transparent word game. If you cannot understand that, then you are trapped. I happen to be able to see how the distinction is meaningless. That's why I do not buy into it. I'd never claim it proves there is a God, much less a specific religion, but being able to get past this fallacy in one's mind certainly is necessary to understand the discussion at all. You simply can't have a productive discussion of this subject while honestly believing that your opinion does not require proof, but someone else's does.

Neither of us has any proof to give, we have evidence. The best I can offer is to show why I do not find your evidence credible, and why I feel what I see as a lack of evidence leads me to feel the way I do. We will of course have to go to a different forum. I will not violate the rules I agreed too in order to discuss it here.

 

[ebia]

Good.



This applies to everyone equally so no offence but this point is extremely trivial.
It's basic stuff, you can argue that there is no 100% unbiased opinion and the closest thing we can get is 95% because we always start off with some kind of idea before evidence. That however does not change anything about my statement about certain people that have a mindset that demands evidence. You and I both know a difference exists between people on how much or what kind of evidence they demand before changing their mind.


- Ectezus

My response to this seems to have vanished!