|
Post by fretslider on May 26, 2014 13:15:52 GMT -5
People seem to find it easy to believe what they want especially when they're talking about things that can't be 'proved' one way or another. It seems that the less chance there is of proving anything the more dogmatic the statements get made about it. So people say for example that an idea or a belief system or whatever is good or bad and they really think they're being factual when they're only expressing their own opinion. I don't really care if people do or don't believe in God or anything else. What gets to me is the arrogance of people on both sides who seriously think that their opinions are true. Obviously they must be living in denial because facts and opinions are way different from each other. Now it's NOT a FACT that God exists; I believe that He does but that's an act of faith on my part. It's equally NOT a FACT that God doesn't exist; those who don't believe God exists are making a statement about the universe or whatever that goes BEYOND anything that can be proved or disproved. So, whether they like to fess up to it or not, they're just stating their opinion and it's dishonest of them to PRETEND that somehow it's a fact. Atheism just IS an opinion about the world just as theism is. "Atheism just IS an opinion about the world just as theism is." Jeez, the same old tosh Where is your evidence for this god? The fact that there is no god doesn't mean the sky is about to fall in. Fact? Yes, unless you can show us a piece of evidence that backs up what you choose to believe.
|
|
ladylinda
Moderatorz
Poetry Editor
July 2011 Member of the Month, May 2014 Member of the Month
Posts: 4,901
|
Post by ladylinda on May 26, 2014 13:29:19 GMT -5
People seem to find it easy to believe what they want especially when they're talking about things that can't be 'proved' one way or another. It seems that the less chance there is of proving anything the more dogmatic the statements get made about it. So people say for example that an idea or a belief system or whatever is good or bad and they really think they're being factual when they're only expressing their own opinion. I don't really care if people do or don't believe in God or anything else. What gets to me is the arrogance of people on both sides who seriously think that their opinions are true. Obviously they must be living in denial because facts and opinions are way different from each other. Now it's NOT a FACT that God exists; I believe that He does but that's an act of faith on my part. It's equally NOT a FACT that God doesn't exist; those who don't believe God exists are making a statement about the universe or whatever that goes BEYOND anything that can be proved or disproved. So, whether they like to fess up to it or not, they're just stating their opinion and it's dishonest of them to PRETEND that somehow it's a fact. Atheism just IS an opinion about the world just as theism is. "Atheism just IS an opinion about the world just as theism is." Jeez, the same old tosh Where is your evidence for this god? The fact that there is no god doesn't mean the sky is about to fall in. Fact? Yes, unless you can show us a piece of evidence that backs up what you choose to believe. Well, Fret, it ISN'T a 'fact' that there is no God. It's just your OPINION. Why are you atheists so wimpish about admitting that their point of view is just - an OPINION and NOT a fact?
|
|
|
Post by beth on May 26, 2014 15:41:25 GMT -5
I don't see why anyone should want or need to "prove" anything. Isn't there an old rationale that says, "you can't prove a negative?"
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on May 26, 2014 16:38:35 GMT -5
"Atheism just IS an opinion about the world just as theism is." Jeez, the same old tosh Where is your evidence for this god? The fact that there is no god doesn't mean the sky is about to fall in. Fact? Yes, unless you can show us a piece of evidence that backs up what you choose to believe. Well, Fret, it ISN'T a 'fact' that there is no God. It's just your OPINION. Why are you atheists so wimpish about admitting that their point of view is just - an OPINION and NOT a fact? Opinion? Let's go through it one last time, scientifically. The null hypothesis (Ho) is 'There is no god' And the alternative hypothesis (Ha) 'There is a god' Using the standard hypothetico-deductive method we have a hypothesis in a form that could conceivably be falsified by a test on observable data. A test that could and does run contrary to predictions of the null hypothesis is taken as a falsification of the null hypothesis. A test that could but does not run contrary to the hypothesis corroborates the theory (Ho). Now, have you some evidence that will falsify the null hypothesis, yes or no? Ergo, there is no god. Scientifically proven.
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on May 26, 2014 16:50:57 GMT -5
I don't see why anyone should want or need to "prove" anything. Isn't there an old rationale that says, "you can't prove a negative?" Which is why it is incumbent on the person making the claim to come up with some evidence.
|
|
|
Post by beth on May 26, 2014 16:57:06 GMT -5
I don't see why anyone should want or need to "prove" anything. Isn't there an old rationale that says, "you can't prove a negative?" Which is why it is incumbent on the person making the claim to come up with some evidence. Oh I see ... thereby making it a positive. It requires belief in biblical passages as true fact, though, and it's my opinion some of that is just so much myth. There are only a couple of reasons to try to come up with "proof" , as far as I can see: 1) justifying personal belief (trying to be right) and 2) a deep need to prove someone else wrong.
|
|
|
Post by men an tol on May 26, 2014 18:45:16 GMT -5
I think that sometimes differing subjects get mixed into the same conversation. For example, the Christian Bible is an interesting book and does have historic events in it and does reflect the perspectives of some people on faith, the latter being at least somewhat descriptive of societal inner actions of specific times and places. These connected with other sources of those times and places can provide understanding of past people. These things can contribute to endless dialog as to the validity (of lack thereof) of past human inner actions.
In addition, for some people the Bible is a book of faith, a source of proof of the existence of God and the validity of Christian Theology. In my opinion this should not be argued (particularly by an Atheist) as it is an act of faith and therefore outside of what is typically considered to be logical debate. The faith either is or it isn't no proof required.
Nor should these two areas be mixed when the discussion is entered into between those of the Christian Faith and those not of the Christian faith. As an Atheist it is better not to join in such discussions because, first, the foundations of the two perspectives on life are so disconnected one from the other, that it is unlikely that any common ground can be found. Secondly, from an ethical perspective the Atheist should not enter such dialogs because this can cause harm to the person of faith and that is wrong. What I mean is, while the most that can happen to an Atheist is that they have some form of an epiphany and become converted to the faith. Maybe not likely but such has happened before. However, if the person of faith loses that faith in such dialog, it is unlikely that there is any ready path for them to follow and that is not ethical to do to someone. If you are going to shake and weaken the faith of another (from an Atheist ethical perspective) you must be prepare to fill that hole.
|
|
|
Post by men an tol on May 26, 2014 20:14:27 GMT -5
Belief hinders true understanding
If we had no belief, what would happen to us? Shouldn't we be very frightened of what might happen? If we had no pattern of action based on a belief either in God, or in communism, or in socialism, or in imperialism, or in some kind of religious formula, some dogma in which we are conditioned, we should feel utterly lost, shouldn't we? And is not this acceptance of a belief the covering up of that fear - the fear of being really nothing, of being empty? After all, a cup is useful only when it is empty; and a mind that is filled with beliefs, with dogmas, with assertions, with quotations, is really an uncreative mind; it is merely a repetitive mind. To escape from that fear - that fear of emptiness, that fear of loneliness, that fear of stagnation, of not arriving, not succeeding, not achieving, not being something, not becoming something, is surely one of the reasons, is it not, why we accept beliefs so eagerly and greedily? And, through acceptance of belief, do we understand ourselves? On the contrary. A belief, religious or political, obviously hinders the understanding of ourselves. It acts as a screen through which we look at ourselves. And can we look at ourselves without beliefs? If we remove these beliefs, the many beliefs that one has, is there anything left to look at? If we have no beliefs with which the mind has identified itself, then the mind, without identification, is capable of looking at itself as it is, and then surely there is the beginning of the understand of oneself. - Krishnamurti, J. Krishnamurti, The Book of Life
|
|
|
Post by men an tol on May 27, 2014 14:34:39 GMT -5
We are nearing the 74th anniversary of the June 4th 1940 Churchill Speech ending with the following paragraph:
“ . . . We shall not flag nor fail. We shall go on to the end. We shall fight in France and on the seas and oceans; we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air. We shall defend our island whatever the cost may be; we shall fight on beaches, landing grounds, in fields, in streets and on the hills. We shall never surrender and even if, which I do not for the moment believe, this island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, will carry on the struggle until in God's good time the New World with all its power and might, sets forth to the liberation and rescue of the Old. . . “
This great Statesman, this Knight of Individual Liberty, stood nearly alone against the belief that Germany was unbeatable. Honor and doing what is right no matter the cost, Churchill said about Neville Chamberlain when he returned singing “peace in our time,” “ "You were given the choice between war and dishonour. You chose dishonour and you will have war."
I wonder what the old Statesman would say about today as we grovel in the dishonor of political correctness at the feet of those who hate us and want to destroy us.
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on May 27, 2014 16:15:03 GMT -5
We are nearing the 74th anniversary of the June 4th 1940 Churchill Speech ending with the following paragraph: “ . . . We shall not flag nor fail. We shall go on to the end. We shall fight in France and on the seas and oceans; we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air. We shall defend our island whatever the cost may be; we shall fight on beaches, landing grounds, in fields, in streets and on the hills. We shall never surrender and even if, which I do not for the moment believe, this island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, will carry on the struggle until in God's good time the New World with all its power and might, sets forth to the liberation and rescue of the Old. . . “ This great Statesman, this Knight of Individual Liberty, stood nearly alone against the belief that Germany was unbeatable. Honor and doing what is right no matter the cost, Churchill said about Neville Chamberlain when he returned singing “peace in our time,” “ "You were given the choice between war and dishonour. You chose dishonour and you will have war." I wonder what the old Statesman would say about today as we grovel in the dishonor of political correctness at the feet of those who hate us and want to destroy us. Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duties, and so bear ourselves that, if the British Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousand years, men will still say, "This was their finest hour."That attitude is long gone.
|
|
|
Post by men an tol on May 27, 2014 19:57:42 GMT -5
Fret, sometimes it seems that we've lived into the wrong age. The difference between honor and dishonor has been lost.
|
|
|
Post by mouse on May 28, 2014 2:27:19 GMT -5
Fret, sometimes it seems that we've lived into the wrong age. The difference between honor and dishonor has been lost. not so much lost as deliberately cut downand buried by those who have no regard for honour.. principles..integrity and those who stood for the old standards smeared and defamed with epitaths such as little Englander...racist....elitist etc etc
|
|
|
Post by men an tol on May 28, 2014 8:06:59 GMT -5
Mouse, you are right. They truly sad thing is those who are the heirs to this grand cultural history of England, of Western Culture, stand aside and allow it to be demeaned. Some even join in the demeaning.
|
|
ladylinda
Moderatorz
Poetry Editor
July 2011 Member of the Month, May 2014 Member of the Month
Posts: 4,901
|
Post by ladylinda on May 28, 2014 11:11:25 GMT -5
Well, Fret, it ISN'T a 'fact' that there is no God. It's just your OPINION. Why are you atheists so wimpish about admitting that their point of view is just - an OPINION and NOT a fact? Opinion? Let's go through it one last time, scientifically. The null hypothesis (Ho) is 'There is no god' And the alternative hypothesis (Ha) 'There is a god' Using the standard hypothetico-deductive method we have a hypothesis in a form that could conceivably be falsified by a test on observable data. A test that could and does run contrary to predictions of the null hypothesis is taken as a falsification of the null hypothesis. A test that could but does not run contrary to the hypothesis corroborates the theory (Ho). Now, have you some evidence that will falsify the null hypothesis, yes or no? Ergo, there is no god. Scientifically proven. Not actually true, Fret. Leaving aside the fact that in science a lot of things are incapable of being proved and are just basically taken as 'best guess' sort of things it doesn't follow that because you can't prove the existence of something that you can prove its non-existence. By the way, you do realise that scientists almost NEVER use the 'hypothetico-deductive method,' don't you? Now you're begging the question by assuming that the 'null hypothesis' is valid. Absence of evidence doesn't necessarily mean evidence of absence. To say you don;t think there's a God is fine; to say you KNOW there's no God isn't. It goes beyond the evidence and you CAN'T prove or disprove it logically. Your 'null hypothesis' is as credible as the ontological whotsit. It's basic bullshit by atheists who are too intellectually lazy to defend their prejudices.
|
|
ladylinda
Moderatorz
Poetry Editor
July 2011 Member of the Month, May 2014 Member of the Month
Posts: 4,901
|
Post by ladylinda on May 28, 2014 11:17:52 GMT -5
One of the problems with evidence anyway is that atheists keep REJECTING evidence that conflicts with their dogmas.
For instance, if Jesus rose from the dead that would be pretty strong evidence but of course atheists don't believe that happened.
At Fatima thousands of people - including hardened atheists - saw what appeared to be the sun moving.
Now none of the atheists present changed their views on religion.
But they did all agree that something weird had happened.
If you'd been there you'd have refused to believe what you'd seen with your own eyes because it conflicts with your prejudices.
I've had religious experiences where I've had direct contact with the Virgin Mary and angels (and as a strong Protestant I've got NO background in Mariolatry so that's weird in itself))
I've seen ghosts walking through walls, seen poltergeists (and their activities carried on even after we moved out of the house)
I've been in a room with me, my husband and two kids sitting on a sofa when it rose up two feet into the air of its own accord.
So don't tell me there's no evidence; there is but it's not easy to turn on and off like a tap which is what you can usually do in lab rat situations.
|
|