You don't know what you do not know

[quatona]

People choose to believe whatever they wish to believe, and even if you provided them with all the evidence in the world, they would still discard and reject the things they do not wish to believe.

Demonstrably inaccurate. Evidence has a great track record when it comes to convincing people of (even inconvenient) facts.

Let's take the example of rationalists (and you could put atheists and agnostics in this category).

No, you can´t.

 

[SamuelTP1977]

Disagree. The reasons have been elaborated on in countless threads. 1


I have never seen evolution to be in conflict with the hypothetical existence of a god. 2

Ideas that are constructed as unfalsifiable can´t be ruled out. That´s not exactly a forte of such ideas. I can make 10 unfalsifiable claims within 5 minutes. 3

From a non-theist´s perspective, that´s the second step before the first. Can´t be common ground, for obvious reasons. 4

In quote 1 you say "Disagree. The reasons have been elaborated on in countless threads." I believe this was in response to me saying (This is a summary,) "an atheist belief is a faith based belief because you can't prove you are right." It can't be proven to be false your soul is mortal, this is unfalsifiable . So whatever you folks have been saying about that I do request to hear a summary of what has been said if it isn't too much trouble. I feel I am a seeker too.

I feel Christ came back from the dead, you can't rule it out. I hope so. This is a lot different from Lepercans because billions of people do not believe in them, that makes a big difference.

 

[SamuelTP1977]

That doesn't answer my question, it just restates your original post. I was asking how beliefs (or as you've restated it, ideas about knowledge) can be persecuted, or need protection or respect; I can understand if you were referring to the people who have the ideas and beliefs, or the expression of those ideas and beliefs (within reasonable limits), but that's not what you said.

I think people have a fundamental right to respect as human beings, to hold their ideas and beliefs, and to express them (within reasonable limits); but those ideas and beliefs are fair game for question, debate, criticism, and even ridicule. There is an increasing tendency to arrogate the 'right to take personal offence' when ideas and beliefs are criticised; Evelyn Beatrice Hall summed up the right to free speech when she said, "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."

Also, you didn't respond to my suggestion that your view implies that it's good in general for people to have false beliefs and have them protected, if they're somehow the 'right' sort of false beliefs (assuming that most religions believe other religions have it wrong).

I feel the people who have these religious beliefs should be protected. These religious beliefs which you are suggesting are false cannot be proven to be false and need to be respected and protect people who have these beliefs from persecution.

Does that answer your question?

 

[SamuelTP1977]

Compromise and tolerance should never be the attitude in any monotheistic religion. It violates the fundamental principle of a monotheistic religion.

How many gods would you mind to recognize?

I am not sure what you mean by recognizing gods? I feel that the bill of rights in the constitution is a good document and protects peoples' religious freedoms.

 

[SamuelTP1977]

Actually, that is not such a good idea at all, since the reality of their different beliefs shows that there is no common ground. People choose to believe whatever they wish to believe, and even if you provided them with all the evidence in the world, they would still discard and reject the things they do not wish to believe.

Let's take the example of rationalists (and you could put atheists and agnostics in this category). They believe that human reason is the only true test for any belief (reason is in itself a source of knowledge superior to and independent of sense perceptions -- Merriam-Webster). But they are totally mistaken, since the spirit world is a reality and they do not recognize this reality. They also do not recognize the reality of a living faith.

Christians can (and must) give the Gospel of Christ to all regardless of what their beliefs are, since that is the only truth which counts for the present and for eternity. Whether they accept it or reject it is purely up to them, and there are consequences to either decision. ALL ARE SINNERS AND ALL NEED THE SAVIOR.

I do feel though that it is important to find common ground because at a forum like this we have both atheists and theists coming here and even agnostics so it is important to learn what we can from each other especially the nature of faith.

Sincerely,

Sam

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I feel the people who have these religious beliefs should be protected. These religious beliefs which you are suggesting are false cannot be proven to be false and need to be respected and protect people who have these beliefs from persecution.

Does that answer your question?

Partly; I agree about the people, but why should I be expected to respect a belief that can't be falsified? That's just Russell's Teapot. If any beliefs deserve respect, it's those that can be falsified.

 

[Tinker Grey]

How do you test the immorality of genocide?

The tests have been run.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Your link says something different:
"Now faith is assurance of [things] hoped for, a conviction of things not seen."

I don't know why the link quoted the American Standard Version. I quoted the KJV.

 

[quatona]

In quote 1 you say "Disagree. The reasons have been elaborated on in countless threads." I believe this was in response to me saying (This is a summary,) "an atheist belief is a faith based belief because you can't prove you are right."

What you actually had said was:
"However, we do have faith and whether you are convinced it didn't happen, or convinced it did happen or you reserve judgment, this is a matter of one's faith."

It can't be proven to be false your soul is mortal, this is unfalsifiable .

I don´t recall saying this, nor do I know that being an atheist or an agnostic requires me to make such a statement.
Personally, I don´t know that there is such a thing as a "soul", to begin with.

I feel Christ came back from the dead, you can't rule it out. I hope so. This is a lot different from Lepercans because billions of people do not believe in them, that makes a big difference.

No, that doesn´t make a big difference when it comes to the question whether not adopting this belief requires me to have faith.
Btw., billions of people do not believe in the God of your concept, either.

 

[lesliedellow]

The tests have been run.

They have?

 

[juvenissun]

I am not sure what you mean by recognizing gods? I feel that the bill of rights in the constitution is a good document and protects peoples' religious freedoms.

Jesus, Buddha, Allah, Vishnu, etc. Which one is the God?
None of them, one of them, some of them, or all of them?
Answer it. That would tell you where you are.
In your position, it has to be "all of them". If not, your OP would not make any sense.

 

[durangodawood]

They have?

Yes.
Lots of genocides.
Holocaust.
Rwanda.
Armenia.
Etc.
Theyve all tested positive for immorality.

 

[lesliedellow]

Yes.
Lots of genocides.
Holocaust.
Rwanda.
Armenia.
Etc.
Theyve all tested positive for immorality.

How? What physical experiment established their immorality? Science is the only source of knowledge, remember.

 

[durangodawood]

How? What physical experiment established their immorality? Science is the only source of knowledge, remember.

Morality exist in the minds of people. And the people have spoken.

 

[lesliedellow]

Morality exist in the minds of people. And the people have spoken.

So most of the world's population are theists. The people have spoken. That sufficiently tests the hypothesis that God exists, does it not?

If the Nazis had won the Second World War, and through propaganda they had managed to persuade the population of Europe that murdering Jews was the moral thing to do, would that have made it moral, or would it still have been (objectively) immoral?

If the latter, what concieveable empirical experiment could establish its immorality?

 

[durangodawood]

So most of the world's population are theists. The people have spoken. That sufficiently tests the hypothesis that God exists, does it not?

Morality exist in the minds of people. So, by the same token, if you accept that God is something that exists in the mind of people, then yes, God exists. But I dont think you want to go there.

I never said morality exists 'out there' in the world or in some other realm.

 

[durangodawood]

...If the Nazis had won the Second World War, and through propaganda they had managed to persuade the population of Europe that murdering Jews was the moral thing to do, would that have made it moral, or would it still have been (objectively) immoral?

If the latter, what concieveable empirical experiment could establish its immorality?

Genocidal behavior was sanctioned by God in ancient Hebrew times. I suppose we could morally devolve back to that. I sure hope not. Point is, human morality is not fixed for eternity.

 

[bhsmte]

I feel it would be a good idea to try to find common ground between atheists, agnostics and theists. We are not made to know and when we develop an opinion about the divinity of Jesus Christ, we cannot prove we have the truth. It was 2000 years ago, and we cannot verify what the bible says about what Jesus did when he walked the Earth. However, we do have faith and whether you are convinced it didn't happen, or convinced it did happen or you reserve judgment, this is a matter of one's faith.

Even if evolution did happen, this could be how God made all of life. You still can't rule him out. So I definitely hope for heaven and fear for hell, but trust God on this issue.

So what are your thoughts on this post?

Sincerely,

Sam

My thoughts are; people are free to believe whatever they like.

I take no issue with those who have faith beliefs unless; they claim they are superior to me, or I am being led by evil and or, they misrepresent well evidenced reality to protect their personal belief.

Beyond that, believe what you will.

 

[Chriliman]

Morality exist in the minds of people. So, by the same token, if you accept that God is something that exists in the mind of people, then yes, God exists. But I dont think you want to go there.

I never said morality exists 'out there' in the world or in some other realm.

Animals have been observed to exhibit moral behavior, which by your logic above means morality exists in the minds of animals, which would also mean God exists in the minds of animals(according to your own logic).

Wouldn't this imply that we did not create morality or God?

Or are you going to deny your own logic?

 

[durangodawood]

Animals have been observed to exhibit moral behavior, which by your logic above means morality exists in the minds of animals, which would also mean God exists in the minds of animals(according to your own logic).

Wouldn't this imply that we did not create morality or God?

Or are you going to deny your own logic?

I meant "morals" as in judgement-making about right/wrong.
Animals exhibit behavior that promotes their survival, individually or socially, depending on the sort of animal.
I'm not sure if they make judgements about it though.
Sorry about the confusion.