How to do you differentiate?

[luvinspoon]

I have a web site where there are ideas and claims. The ideas can be validated with science but the claims can not be validated with evidence. One of the problems is that what needs to be validated does not want to be found. Why is it that the religious demand evidence to prove a claim when the very foundation of religions has no validation or evidence to substantiate its claims?

If one is to have faith in something then would it make sense to have faith in something you can explain? In other words if the science allows the plausibility and all that is left is evidence to validate it, then all your left with, if there is no evidence, is a belief. The link below goes to my site the ideas on it have banned me from the Raelian board. The ideas on the site came to me in a dream.

"http://luvinspoon.tripod.com

How do you differentiate an acceptable belief and a non-acceptable one? I mean if someone believes in Buddha or some other institutional religion, then faith is tolerated.

Luvinspoon

 

 

 

[Just]

(f)=x^n

.`.

f(f)= nx^n-1

 

[Just]

no, seriously....

You have a good point,

It seems that commonly held belief's or faith's such as religion are OK to have and are politically incorrect to critisize. More rare ones, such as "fairies exist" seem to be disregarded by almost everyone in society.

This is one of the reasons I don't hold a beleif  that cannot be proven by science. That is, there are so many belief's that could be held without reasonable grounds, to accept one over another seems very irrational.

 

[webboffin]

But if science cannot handle God so therefore ignores a God then isn't it an act of personal faith that someone scientifically views there must be no God? I mean if science just doesn't know.

 

[lucaspa]

Today at 10:24 AM webboffin said this in Post #4

then isn't it an act of personal faith that someone scientifically views there must be no God?

Yes, web, that is an act of personal faith.  You get backing from no less a person than the head of NCSE:

" Properly understood, the principle of methodological materialism requires neutrality towards God; we cannot say, wearing our scientist hats, whether God does or does not act. I could say, speaking from the perspective of my personal philosophy, that matter and energy and their interactions (materialism) are not only sufficient to understand the natural world (methodological materialism) but in fact, I believe there is nothing beyond matter and energy.  This is the philosophy of materialism, which I, and probably most humanists, hold to. I intentionally added "I believe" when I spoke of my personal philosophy, which is entirely proper. "I believe," however; is not a phrase that belongs in science."  Science and Religion, Methodology, and  Humanism, Eugenie C Scott, NCSE Executive Director; Reports of the National Center for Science Education 18: 15-17, Mar/Apr. 1998.

 

[lucaspa]

Yesterday at 11:51 PM luvinspoon said this in Post #1

The ideas can be validated with science but the claims can not be validated with evidence. One of the problems is that what needs to be validated does not want to be found. Why is it that the religious demand evidence to prove a claim when the very foundation of religions has no validation or evidence to substantiate its claims?

It's not that religion has no evidence, it's just that the "evidence" is personal experience that is not available to all.  Notice that in your conversation with the Raelian, your personal experience doesn't match the personal experience of Rael.  The Raelians trust Rael and don't trust you.

If one is to have faith in something then would it make sense to have faith in something you can explain? In other words if the science allows the plausibility and all that is left is evidence to validate it, then all your left with, if there is no evidence, is a belief.

Science allows the possibility of all manner of entities.  God, faeries, tachyons, time travel, ETs in your flavor or someone else's flavor, etc. Science works by falsification.  Whatever can't be falsified is possible.

The ideas on the site came to me in a dream.

Which means that the experience is yours alone and we can't get the same experience under approximately the same circumstances.  That is called "intersubjective" and, if your experience is not intersubjective, then science consciously excludes it from science. 

How do you differentiate an acceptable belief and a non-acceptable one? I mean if someone believes in Buddha or some other institutional religion, then faith is tolerated.

  Basically using a form of intersubjectivity. That is, if a large number of people share your personal experience or one close to it, then your faith is tolerated.  There's some "backing" for it.  Millions of people over the millenia have had personal experiences that they are convinced were from and about deity.  Therefore belief in deity is tolerated.

When it comes to individual sects or denominations, the person with the experience is either able to convince others or their experience resonates somehow with the experiences of others.  For instance, Joseph Smith was able to convince others to trust him that he really had an encounter with an angel who told Smith about modifications to  Christianity.  The same applies to Mary Ellen White and Seventh Day Adventists. You'll notice that most Christians did not accept Smith's or White's personal experience as valid.

In your case your dream clashed with the waking experience of Rael, so the Raelians refuse to accept your dream as valid experience. 

 

[webboffin]

Is Jesus evidence of God exists? Is there any other religion that has their own messiah that came to Earth to teach the people of their own god?

 

[PhantomLlama]

Today at 04:46 PM webboffin said this in Post #7 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=700903#post700903)

Is Jesus evidence of God exists? Is there any other religion that has their own messiah that came to Earth to teach the people of their own god?

I think that some do, but it is irrelevant. The truth of a religion is not determined by that.

 

[lucaspa]

Today at 11:46 AM webboffin said this in Post #7

Is Jesus evidence of God exists? Is there any other religion that has their own messiah that came to Earth to teach the people of their own god?

Mithraism is one I can think of immediately.  Some of the religions of the Saxons and other tribes on the southern shore of the North Sea also had a god become human.

 

[Just]

Today at 01:24 AM webboffin said this in Post #4

But if science cannot handle God so therefore ignores a God then isn't it an act of personal faith that someone scientifically views there must be no God? I mean if science just doesn't know.

By the above theory:

centaurs exist, fairies exist, allah exists, trolls exist, dragons exist, aliens exist, teacups orbiting jupiter exist, cyclopses exist, gnoll exist, titans exist, angels exist....  are these views personal faith? it is personal faith that 'dinosaurs do not exist now'?

If there is no scientific proof of god intervening with this world - then we can conclude that god does not interfere. Or that it is highly likely that there is no God. Of course we cannot say God does not exist exclusively. but think of the probabilities.

 

Let me ask you a question: 

Is there scientific proof against Santa?

Is the view that Santa is non-existant scientific or faith based?

 


 

I think there are other reasons people believe in a higher power. Briefly they are:

• Evolutionary need to look up to an alpha male (the fact that there are more atheist men than women supports this)
  
• Belief in God gives comfort and hope, just like the imaginary friend you thought you had when you were 5.
  
• People have been brought up and brainwashed with what is right.
  
• No-one knows exactly what happens when you die or the other unanswered questions of life. Religion attempts to answer these - again comforting
  

 

Is Jesus evidence of God exists? Is there any other religion that has their own messiah that came to Earth to teach the people of their own god?

Jesus is no more evidence than you or I. Since I'm not a follower of Christianity, I do not believe Jesus was different to anyone else. The fact that he was a good person depends on your definition of good.

I could claim to be Allah's son. Would this make Islam true?

 

[OLDoMiNiON]

lol, keep arguing people. You're going to get nowhere!
Some people have faith that there is a God, some don't. Live with it, and stop trying to convert christians to Atheists or whathaveyou... If you chose to believe us when we tell you that Jesus died for your sin, and that he loves you, and wants you to follow him, then fine. If not, then it's your own choice!

But do you see me coming onto an Atheist discussion board andtrying to convert you, No. So please, grant me the same courtesy..

 

[Just]

Today at 09:07 AM OLDoMiNiON said this in Post #11

lol, keep arguing people. You're going to get nowhere!
Some people have faith that there is a God, some don't. Live with it, and stop trying to convert christians to Atheists or whathaveyou... If you chose to believe us when we tell you that Jesus died for your sin, and that he loves you, and wants you to follow him, then fine. If not, then it's your own choice!

But do you see me coming onto an Atheist discussion board andtrying to convert you, No. So please, grant me the same courtesy..

 

•  It is impossible to convert you to Atheism. Atheism is lack of religion.
  
• I am not trying to deconvert you, but discuss my own belief and whether there is a a reason why I should believe in Christianity. (It would be nice to know that there is a God) I would definately like to hear real proof of God...
  
• Do I see you trying to convert people? No.
  
  Do I see Christians trying to convert people? Yes, at Missionaries, at my school, on my atheist message board, everywhere....
  

 

[lucaspa]

Today at 05:58 PM Just said this in Post #10

By the above theory:

centaurs exist, fairies exist, allah exists, trolls exist, dragons exist, aliens exist, teacups orbiting jupiter exist, cyclopses exist, gnoll exist, titans exist, angels exist....  are these views personal faith? it is personal faith that 'dinosaurs do not exist now'?

Sorry, but by the methods of science centaurs, trolls, dragons, cyclops, and titans don't exist. Fairies, allah, aliens, teacups orbiting Jupiter, and angels may exist. 

Science works by falsification.  The first set of entities can be falsified. The second set can't. What can't be falsified is possible by science.

The statement "dinosaurs exist now" can be falsified, therefore your statement is not belief.  (Of course, since birds are really a group of species descended from dinosaurs, then you can also say that dinosaurs still do exist.)

If there is no scientific proof of god intervening with this world - then we can conclude that god does not interfere.

What can be done is falsify some of the proposed ways by which God "intervenes" in the physical universe.  However, some of the proposed ways of "interferring" can't be falsified and instead are supported. For instance, if you propose that God "interferred" by creating the universe via the Big Bang, galaxies, stars, and planets by gravity, life by chemistry, and the diversity of life by evolution, then you have all the support you could ever want for the intervention of deity.

The problem here is methodological materialism.  Science can find the material causes, but it absolutely can NOT tell you that those causes are the only causes. 

Or that it is highly likely that there is no God. Of course we cannot say God does not exist exclusively. but think of the probabilities.

Calculate the probabilities.  How do you do that?  In this case, "probability" equals your personal belief.

 

Let me ask you a question: 

Is there scientific proof against Santa?

Is the view that Santa is non-existant scientific or faith based?

Yes, there is scientific falsification of Santa. Think about it. How would you test Santa and falsify it?

This is one area where I have extreme disdain for militant atheism.  It is just as dogmatic and non-thinking as fundamentalist Christianity.  Do you have any idea of the number of times I have seen this argument proposed?  By people who are supposed to know science and critical thinking? They repeat it as dogma without ever actually thinking about it.

 

[lucaspa]

Today at 06:34 PM Just said this in Post #12
[*] It is impossible to convert you to Atheism. Atheism is lack of religion.

[*] I am not trying to deconvert you, but discuss my own belief and whether there is a a reason why I should believe in Christianity. (It would be nice to know that there is a God) I would definately like to hear real proof of God...

Do I see Christians trying to convert people? Yes, at Missionaries, at my school, on my atheist message board, everywhere....

Let's take this in order.

1. Atheism is a faith/belief. It is the belief/faith that deity does not exist.  A necessary part of this belief is the faith that the material causes discovered by science are the only causes.

2. The reason you believe in Christianity is the same as the reason you believe in atheism: personal experience.  In the case of Christians you have personal experience of Yahweh and Jesus or trust those who do.  In the case of atheism your personal experience is no experience of God or Jesus and trust in people who also have no such experience.

Now, I know you can find reasons to doubt the experience of theists.  But stop and think of reasons to doubt that your experience may be valid.

3.  There is no scientific "proof" either for theism or for atheism.  If you've got the peer-reviewed scientific paper that shows deity doesn't exist, I'd like the reference.

4.  Theists in general and Christians in particular are under the command to spread the "good news".  From their pov, this makes sense. After all, if you truly believe there is a God and that someone can have eternal life, it would be unethical not to inform others of that benefit.  You can certainly justifiably argue that some are too zealous and threaten to interfer with your personal freedom to refuse to become Christian.  You can also argue for the privacy to have Christians refrain from proselytizing on an atheist message forum.  However, if you do that, then to be consistent you have to respect a Christian message board and not try to convert to atheism here.

 

[David Gould]

Hmmm.

I would argue that strong atheism CAN be a faith - I personally know of one strong atheist whose faith is absolute that there are no deities.

However, one can be a strong atheist in regard to particular presented supernatural entities through them being falsified.

One example is the God that turns me into a blue rock every Monday for all of Monday. As it is Monday and I am not a blue rock (if I was a blue rock I could not type this, after all).

I am therefore justified in being a strong atheist in regards to this particular deity - no faith is required.

I agree that the Deist god is one that it is not possible to falsfiy, and thus any strong atheist in regard to that deity must be operating on faith.

 

With regard to the Christian God, I am a strong atheist in regard to that particular deity because the attributes of that deity (as presented by his human followers) are not logically compatible.

It may be that the Christian God exists but has been wrongly described to me by his followers - I am a weak atheist in regard to this deity.

 

[OLDoMiNiON]

The fact is that i don't need to prove that God exists, and it's useless asking me to question my "faith", because that i have, and faith does not need justification....

Faith
Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

That is what Faith is! My personal experiences have made me believe 100% that Jesus is my saviour, and i'm not going to get into a theological debate about it, since i don't care I've experienced Gods work in my life, and i *know* it was him, not a dream, not some crazy hallucinations, but him. That is why i believe, not because you can prove it, but because i've experienced him, as many others on this board have also.

 

[Freodin]

Today at 09:27 AM OLDoMiNiON said this in Post #16 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=702303#post702303)

The fact is that i don't need to prove that God exists, and it's useless asking me to question my "faith", because that i have, and faith does not need justification....

Faith
Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

That is what Faith is! My personal experiences have made me believe 100% that Jesus is my saviour, and i'm not going to get into a theological debate about it, since i don't care I've experienced Gods work in my life, and i *know* it was him, not a dream, not some crazy hallucinations, but him. That is why i believe, not because you can prove it, but because i've experienced him, as many others on this board have also.

So what do you do in these parts of the forum?

 

[JillLars]

Yesterday at 05:34 PM Just said this in Post #12

 

•  It is impossible to convert you to Atheism. Atheism is lack of religion.
  
• I am not trying to deconvert you, but discuss my own belief and whether there is a a reason why I should believe in Christianity. (It would be nice to know that there is a God) I would definately like to hear real proof of God...
  
• Do I see you trying to convert people? No.
  
  Do I see Christians trying to convert people? Yes, at Missionaries, at my school, on my atheist message board, everywhere....
  

It may be impossible to convert people to athiesm, but it isn't impossble to get people to abandon their beliefs for your own...oh wait, isn't that what converting is, my mistake.

So, with that said, yes, I do see you trying to convert people.

It would also be nice to know that there isn't a God, let's hear your "real proof" of that since you seem to be pretty confident in your belief that there isn't one.

Whatever religion (or lack thereof) any of us choose to follow, it ultimatley comes down to faith.  Like the quote that was posted earlier about the scientist saying that he "believes" that there isn't anything but energy and matter.  He can't prove it.

Sorry if I have sounded angry, I just get very sick of athiests claiming to have found the truth, and telling the rest of us that we are just brainwashed, or ignorant.  ultimately we all have to take that leap of faith.

 

[Freodin]

Today at 11:05 AM JillLars said this in Post #18 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=702346#post702346)

Sorry if I have sounded angry, I just get very sick of athiests claiming to have found the truth, and telling the rest of us that we are just brainwashed, or ignorant.  ultimately we all have to take that leap of faith.

Yes, it is not uplifting to be told you are doing it wrong, that your innermost thoughts are false, to be called names.

Be thankful that there are only very few Atheists that use this kind of approach - as I am thankfull that there are not more Christians who use it. I have seen enough of them here, and I don´t want to see more.


Ultimately, it all comes down to faith - but that faith should always include the admission that you might be wrong.

 

[OLDoMiNiON]

So what do you do in these parts of the forum?

erm, discuss things about my beliefs, aswell as others... i don't, however try to convert them.