Demonstrably inaccurate. Evidence has a great track record when it comes to convincing people of (even inconvenient) facts.
No, you can´t.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Demonstrably inaccurate. Evidence has a great track record when it comes to convincing people of (even inconvenient) facts.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.
No, you can´t.Let's take the example of rationalists (and you could put atheists and agnostics in this category).
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
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).
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?
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.
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.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?
Your link says something different:
"Now faith is assurance of [things] hoped for, a conviction of things not seen."
What you actually had said was: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."
I don´t recall saying this, nor do I know that being an atheist or an agnostic requires me to make such a statement.It can't be proven to be false your soul is mortal, this is unfalsifiable .
No, that doesn´t make a big difference when it comes to the question whether not adopting this belief requires me to have faith.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.
The tests have been run.
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.
Yes.They have?
Yes.
Lots of genocides.
Holocaust.
Rwanda.
Armenia.
Etc.
Theyve all tested positive for immorality.
Morality exist in the minds of people. And the people have spoken.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.
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.So most of the world's population are theists. The people have spoken. That sufficiently tests the hypothesis that God exists, does it not?
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....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?
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
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.
I meant "morals" as in judgement-making about right/wrong.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?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?