[PERMANENTLY CLOSED] When should we change our reasoning / beliefs?

[Chriliman]

I'm not really interested in playing games. I can't know what your objective is, and I'd like to keep this thread constructive and on-topic. This discussion is not about my religious status. I gave you multiple chances to present your apparent objection to what I said, and you have not, so there's nothing for us to discuss. If you would like to address one of my posts directly, I would be happy to talk with you, but otherwise I will move on to other posters.

No, that's not quite how these terms work. Atheism is not a knowledge claim. There are many different types of atheism, but inherently, it's just a conclusion. Agnosticism is the claim that one does not have proof, but without that label, you can't know for sure how an atheist feels about it.

I don't mean to degrade your concept of God, but usually the best comparison I can think of is some sort of mythological animal. I wouldn't consider someone irrational for asserting that there are no unicorns on this planet, even though it's impossible for him or her to have personal evidence that there are no unicorns on any corner of this Earth. There's a certain point where a lack of evidence in favor of a concept makes it reasonable to draw a conclusion against it. I don't expect everyone to agree with that conclusion, however. I wouldn't fault someone for saying "There could be unicorns in some place that hasn't been explored yet."

I'm not saying atheism is a knowledge claim I'm actualy saying the opposite of that. I'm saying atheism is the admission that one has no knowledge of God. Therefore saying they have non-belief regarding a God or gods is irrational because there isn't any physical or personal evidence to justify this non-belief, therefore they should just admit they actually just don't know yet whether or not God exists. This would be the honest thing to admit.

 

[Cearbhall]

I'm not saying atheism is a knowledge claim I'm actualy saying the opposite of that. I'm saying atheism is the admission that one has no knowledge of God. Therefore saying they have non-belief regarding a God or gods is irrational because there isn't any physical or personal evidence to justify this non-belief, therefore they should just admit they actually just don't know yet whether or not God exists. This would be the honest thing to admit.

Ah. Then I'm afraid I don't understand the logic if your argument. You seem to be condemning a non-issue.

What say you to my unicorns comparison? If your reaction is consistent, then maybe I'll be able to understand better. Do you feel that people are irrational and unjustified in saying that other such concepts do not exist? Perhaps the unicorn isn't the best example, since it's not very contentious. I would say that, for most people, a lack of evidence is reasonable grounds for concluding that something does not exist. With most things, we don't go on and on refusing to say that something does not exist just because someone dreamt it up and we can't completely rule it out. In no way do I feel obligated to entertain all of the ideas that humans have come up with. If there's evidence, I'll look at it, but otherwise I feel comfortable saying that it doesn't exist.

 

[Chriliman]

Ah. Then I'm afraid I don't understand the logic if your argument. You seem to be condemning a non-issue.

What say you to my unicorns comparison? If your reaction is consistent, then maybe I'll be able to understand better. Do you feel that people are irrational and unjustified in saying that other such concepts do not exist? Perhaps the unicorn isn't the best example, since it's not very contentious. I would say that, for most people, a lack of evidence is reasonable grounds for concluding that something does not exist. With most things, we don't go on and on refusing to say that something does not exist just because someone dreamt it up and we can't completely rule it out. In no way do I feel obligated to entertain all of the ideas that humans have come up with. If there's evidence, I'll look at it, but otherwise I feel comfortable saying that it doesn't exist.

But its irrational to think there will be physical evidence that proves a reason for existence. The only way to believe physical evidence will be presented is to believe something beyond humans will reveal the physical evidence for the reason. Obviously humans are incapabable of revealing the reason for existence because of the limits of our subjective minds, we just can't comprehend infinities. It would require something beyond human minds, most likely an infinite timeless God to reveal itself to us because this makes the most sense.

So if you don't believe in the most reasonable explanation to life then you believe physical evidence for why we exist will never be revealed. Therefore, you believe humans will never determine the truth about life, meaning in the end truth is meaningless because our subjective minds are incapable of revealing the actual truth about life.

I'm not claiming unicorns or fairies or any other gods are infinite and timeless, I'm claiming the one true God is infinite and timeless and massless. Which if you think about it more mass equals slow time, so a singularity would be infinitely slow time, but if there is no mass at all then there is no time at all and whatever exists in this state would be infinite.

 

[Cearbhall]

.

 

[Cearbhall]

But its irrational to think there will be physical evidence that proves a reason for existence.

No, I don't expect there to be, so I'm not irrational. But I haven't seen any sort of evidence, so that's that. I don't see any reason to give the benefit of the doubt to a random concept.

I'm not claiming unicorns or fairies or any other gods are infinite and timeless, I'm claiming the one true God is infinite and timeless and massless.

That's not at all the point I was making with that comparison. You said that it's irrational for people to say that God does not exist just because they haven't seen any evidence. I asked if you say the same thing whenever people make such a statement about things like unicorns, since they can't actually know for sure. My point is that you're requiring a higher standard of proof for those who don't believe in God than you would likely require of people who don't believe in most other concepts.

 

[Chriliman]

No, I don't expect there to be, so I'm not irrational. But I haven't seen any sort of evidence, so that's that. I don't see any reason to give the benefit of the doubt to a random concept.

That's not at all the point I was making with that comparison. You said that it's irrational for people to say that God does not exist just because they haven't seen any evidence. I asked if you say the same thing whenever people make such a statement about things like unicorns, since they can't actually know for sure. My point is that you're requiring a higher standard of proof for those who don't believe in God than you would likely require of people who don't believe in most other concepts.

It comes down to reasoning because neither unicorns nor God can be proven by man. So is it more reasonable to believe in unicorns when there's absolutly no one in there right mind claiming they exist? Or is it more reasonable to believe in God because reasonable people claim personal evidence and can actually give sound reasons for there beliefs? It comes down to whether or not your going to believe something that actually makes sense or if your going to reject what makes sense, rendering yourself unreasonable.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

It does not appear that Jesus is someone you are interested in knowing personally at this time.

Ask seek and knock when you are willing.

You completely sidestepped the point at issue. We were discussing whether you were open to be convinced.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Where'd Archaeopteryx go? He avoided my questions again...I'm sure he'll be back, those who honestly seek truth will always come back for more truth. It's a perfect design by a perfect creator

You do realise that we are in different time zones?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Okay, if what I'm saying doesn't make sense, then present your answer to the purpose of this very conversation in such a way that it makes sense to me.

If you say the purpose of this conversation is to find truth, then I'd agree, except this conversation would not have gotten started if it wasn't for me. But honestly this conversation would not have started if it wasn't for God. <that you actually can't deny.

If you say you don't know the purpose or that in the end there is no purpose to this convo then I'm simply inclined to not believe you because you can't give a reason for something purposeless.

So which is it?

This is yet another post that makes no sense to me whatsoever. What on Earth are you trying to say?

 

[Davian]

Serious question: Do you post this to get laughs or are you actually being serious? Because every time you post this I lol at it, so I'm sorry if you're actually being serious.

I am serious. Now, I ask the same of you. Is it your expectation that your proffering of your relgious opinion here as truth is to be taken seriously?

 

[Davian]

Then we have something in common, for neither am I.

Sure, but I allow that I may be wrong.

The original comment was directed at Chriliman, but as you have chimed in, I will ask: do you allow that you may be wrong, and that gods may only be characters in books?

 

[Davian]

I do not accept your irreligious opinion as truth.

Thanks though.

Where was I proffering it as truth?

 

[Davian]

Well I wouldn't say anything if I didn't think it made sense. However, I understand that what makes sense to me does not necessarily mean it will make sense to everyone I explain it to, this is why its critical to be honest with yourself first and then ask questions.

If you don't have knowledge of God, what you should be honestly saying to yourself is that you don't actually know if God is real or not. So claiming non-belief in God is like claiming that you have personal or physical evidence to not believe in God, which if you really think about that you realize non-belief in God is actually irrational because there is no personal or physical evidence that points to the truth that God does not exist.

Because if you claimed to have personal evidence that God does not exist, but can't provide a sound reason for your claim, then no one is going to believe you. And none of you are claiming to have this personal evidence, which must mean you actually don't know if God exists or not, thereby rendering you agnostic, and also rendering atheism irrational because there is no personal or physical evidence to justify the non-belief in God. Sure there's lack of personal evidence, but does that really mean God does not exist, just because you lack personal evidence? No, it just means you don't really know if God exists yet.

It'd be like me saying I have non-belief in a specific star that someone is telling me exists a million light years away. Does my non-belief in this star have any effect on the truth about whether or not this star exists? No, the star would exist whether or not I believe in it. Do I have reason to believe that a star exists a million light years away if someone tells me this is true? Yes. Would I then investigate to find out the truth for myself if I really cared to, yes. Does claiming non-belief in this star get me any closer to figuring out whether or not the star exists? No, asking honest questions and applying myself in a physical way will drive me to figuring out the truth for myself.

We're telling you God exists, because we have personal evidence of God. You continue to claim non-belief in God which is not going to get you anywhere in figuring out if God is actually the truth.

If gods are only characters in books, then the truth is that gods are only characters in books. As you have not shown that your experiences are more than simply imagined, it makes sense to think of gods as only characters in books. Your "knowledge" is simply imagined.

Makes sense to me. Be honest, admit that this makes sense.

 

[Davian]

It comes down to reasoning because neither unicorns nor God can be proven by man.
...

I am not asking that the existence of gods be proven. I am not even sure what you believe in without a clear robust definition.

But, I'd like to think you can trot out something to show that we are not simply talking about characters in books. That you have a feeling in your head that you find very convincing is nice, and all that, but is not much to go on in the absence of other evidence to work with.

 

[paulm50]

Well I wouldn't say anything if I didn't think it made sense. However, I understand that what makes sense to me does not necessarily mean it will make sense to everyone I explain it to, this is why its critical to be honest with yourself first and then ask questions.

We do ask questions. You don't answer them properly. So I will try again.

Given the OT starts with big "mistakes". Then goes on with things that can't be proven. Why should we believe in the rest? And before you offer excuses for the mistakes, offer hard evidence.

If you don't have knowledge of God, what you should be honestly saying to yourself is that you don't actually know if God is real or not. So claiming non-belief in God is like claiming that you have personal or physical evidence to not believe in God, which if you really think about that you realize non-belief in God is actually irrational because there is no personal or physical evidence that points to the truth that God does not exist.

The only knowledge we have of gods are from the ancient books. That we can easily pick holes in. The problem is some are easily persuaded. Look at Joseph Smith's claims, and Hubbard's. Pure nonsense, but people believe.

Because if you claimed to have personal evidence that God does not exist, but can't provide a sound reason for your claim, then no one is going to believe you. And none of you are claiming to have this personal evidence, which must mean you actually don't know if God exists or not, thereby rendering you agnostic, and also rendering atheism irrational because there is no personal or physical evidence to justify the non-belief in God. Sure there's lack of personal evidence, but does that really mean God does not exist, just because you lack personal evidence? No, it just means you don't really know if God exists yet.

If you claim god exists, provide sound reasons for your claim. It's possible to prove the book written in his name is wrong, is that enough proof the writers were making it up?

It'd be like me saying I have non-belief in a specific star that someone is telling me exists a million light years away. Does my non-belief in this star have any effect on the truth about whether or not this star exists? No, the star would exist whether or not I believe in it. Do I have reason to believe that a star exists a million light years away if someone tells me this is true? Yes. Would I then investigate to find out the truth for myself if I really cared to, yes. Does claiming non-belief in this star get me any closer to figuring out whether or not the star exists? No, asking honest questions and applying myself in a physical way will drive me to figuring out the truth for myself.

That star would be something you can see if you had the equipment. Even so that star has no affect on our lives.

We're telling you God exists, because we have personal evidence of God. You continue to claim non-belief in God which is not going to get you anywhere in figuring out if God is actually the truth.

What is personal evidence?

That's where your argument falls down with me. In the last 7 years I had faced to terrible events. My wife had a bad car crash, the trauma specialist said there was little to no hope. She's made a full recovery.

I was hit with stage 5 cancer, given very slim chances. I'm now fine and a 7 year cancer survivor.

You can claim god performed a miracle. I prefer to tell the truth and credit surgeons and science saved us. I can prove surgeons and science saved us. Can you prove god saved two atheists?

 

[KCfromNC]

It comes down to reasoning because neither unicorns nor God can be proven by man. So is it more reasonable to believe in unicorns when there's absolutly no one in there right mind claiming they exist? Or is it more reasonable to believe in God because reasonable people claim personal evidence and can actually give sound reasons for there beliefs?

No to both.

If you think I'm wrong, you can lead by example. Lots of people believe in the Hindu gods for "sound" reasons (at least by the low standards for religious claims). Show us that your approach towards belief is reasonable - since lots of people believe, you need to accept their claims as true if you want to be consistent.

What, the evidence-free testimony of religious believers isn't enough to convince you to commit to their beliefs being true? Now you understand my objection to yours.

 

[Chriliman]

We do ask questions. You don't answer them properly. So I will try again.

Given the OT starts with big "mistakes". Then goes on with things that can't be proven. Why should we believe in the rest? And before you offer excuses for the mistakes, offer hard evidence.
The only knowledge we have of gods are from the ancient books. That we can easily pick holes in. The problem is some are easily persuaded. Look at Joseph Smith's claims, and Hubbard's. Pure nonsense, but people believe.
If you claim god exists, provide sound reasons for your claim. It's possible to prove the book written in his name is wrong, is that enough proof the writers were making it up?
That star would be something you can see if you had the equipment. Even so that star has no affect on our lives.
What is personal evidence?

That's where your argument falls down with me. In the last 7 years I had faced to terrible events. My wife had a bad car crash, the trauma specialist said there was little to no hope. She's made a full recovery.

I was hit with stage 5 cancer, given very slim chances. I'm now fine and a 7 year cancer survivor.

You can claim god performed a miracle. I prefer to tell the truth and credit surgeons and science saved us. I can prove surgeons and science saved us. Can you prove god saved two atheists?

Well I don't actually think God has saved you yet, but that's why time exists and that's why your still alive to experience time because God is gracious and has given you more time to come to know him, so I guess in essence he did spare you from death through cancer, but only because he's not done with you yet. Your either being used for God's glory and you know it, or your being used for God's glory without knowing it, either way God will be glorified and its best for you if you accept His gift. This is all I have for you until I learn more.

 

[Chriliman]

No to both.

If you think I'm wrong, you can lead by example. Lots of people believe in the Hindu gods for "sound" reasons (at least by the low standards for religious claims). Show us that your approach towards belief is reasonable - since lots of people believe, you need to accept their claims as true if you want to be consistent.

What, the evidence-free testimony of religious believers isn't enough to convince you to commit to their beliefs being true? Now you understand my objection to yours.

If someone has a truth claim I dont emediatly assume they must be wrong, instead I ask honest intelligent questions and if their answers make sense and can't be proven wrong, I'm reasonable to believe them, until the truth claim is proven wrong. Once it's proven wrong I then realize I was believing a lie. But what meaning does a lie have if truth has no meaning in the end, which is what atheism alludes to?

 

[KCfromNC]

If someone has a truth claim I dont emediatly assume they must be wrong, instead I ask honest intelligent questions and if their answers make sense and can't be proven wrong, I'm reasonable to believe them, until the truth claim is proven wrong.

That's not the approach you talked about earlier. You implied it was reasonable to believe in things which other reasonable people gave personal testimony for. Why are you changing your story?

But what meaning does a lie have if truth has no meaning in the end, which is what atheism alludes to?

No it doesn't. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in gods. It says nothing about the ontological views of the person lacking belief.

 

[Cearbhall]

It comes down to reasoning because neither unicorns nor God can be proven by man. So is it more reasonable to believe in unicorns when there's absolutly no one in there right mind claiming they exist?

I would say it would be understandable if someone were to say that we can't know for sure, but I would not actually expect anyone to entertain the possibility based on zero evidence. We clearly disagree on this, but thank you for explaining your viewpoint.

You do realise that we are in different time zones?

Oh, let him think what he wants. You should know better than to think that reasonable excuses like time zones or some silly thing like "I have a life" will work...