Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

I am merely exploring an argument against religious belief.

It seems that for an individual that holds religious belief, and claims to have had a spiritual/religious experience, a statement by the detractor saying God (or other belief) does not exist due to lack of evidence is an absurd argument. Given this, what is the purpose of such an argument's use when discussing the topic with such an individual?

Objectively looking at the discussion, and holding that both sides view the evidence they claim as factual, is such an argument valid? Or can it be viewed as anything other than "he said, she said"?

I am unable to go on-line and pursue these discussions as regularly as I once was able, but I will check this thread from time to time and perhaps will have time to respond, perhaps not. Just interested in the possible discussion here.

To one who holds that God does not exist, citing a religious or spiritual experience as evidence of the existence of God is an equally absurd argument. "Given this, what is the purpose of such an argument's use when discussing the topic with such an individual?"

LOL!

Originally posted by Regret
Objectively looking at the discussion, and holding that both sides view the evidence they claim as factual, is such an argument valid? Or can it be viewed as anything other than "he said, she said"?

Objectively looking at the discussion one could be verified, if it actually happened.

Originally posted by Regret
I am merely exploring an argument against religious belief.

It seems that for an individual that holds religious belief, and claims to have had a spiritual/religious experience, a statement by the detractor saying God (or other belief) does not exist due to lack of evidence is an absurd argument. Given this, what is the purpose of such an argument's use when discussing the topic with such an individual?

Objectively looking at the discussion, and holding that both sides view the evidence they claim as factual, is such an argument valid? Or can it be viewed as anything other than "he said, she said"?

I am unable to go on-line and pursue these discussions as regularly as I once was able, but I will check this thread from time to time and perhaps will have time to respond, perhaps not. Just interested in the possible discussion here.

The more extraordinary the claim, the more extraordinary the evidence has to be to support the claim, and the claim of an interaction with a god is a very extraordinary claim. Ordinary evidence, like I witness accounts are not extraordinary, and do not count as evidence when it comes to the claim of an interaction with a god. The person who makes the claim that their account is adequate evidence is confusing what is sufficient for faith with what is needed to convince another person.

experience as before or after the purple pills?

Originally posted by anaconda
experience as before or after the purple pills?

There's a before the purple pills?

hushhhhhhhhhhh

LUUUUUUUULZ

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The more extraordinary the claim, the more extraordinary the evidence has to be to support the claim, and the claim of an interaction with a god is a very extraordinary claim. Ordinary evidence, like I witness accounts are not extraordinary, and do not count as evidence when it comes to the claim of an interaction with a god. The person who makes the claim that their account is adequate evidence is confusing what is sufficient for faith with what is needed to convince another person.

Excellent answer. Co-signed in full. And I like that the distinction is made between what works for the individual and what works for discussion with others.

To add just a bit: If I said that there is a complete lack of evidence for the existence of Santa, a young child's intuitive assertion that he is real doesn't hold up, however strongly they may believe it. And it's the same thing for God. There isn't proof of his nonexistence, and there may never be. But once you perceive the utter lack of evidence for a creator, believing in one based on faith becomes no less silly than the aforementioned child, who at least has youthful naivety as a legitimate excuse. Adults do not.

Both sides are wrong.

Lack of evidence for one side of an argument is not evidence for the other side.

However, if the one saying that he had a religious experience, or that God factually exists, he must give evidence/proof of his claim. Until he does, it holds no water. But that doesn't mean the other side is now correct.

Originally posted by BackFire
Both sides are wrong.

Lack of evidence for one side of an argument is not evidence for the other side.

However, if the one saying that he had a religious experience, or that God factually exists, he must give evidence/proof of his claim. Until he does, it holds no water. But that doesn't mean the other side is now correct.

The other side is only wrong if they assert their position as proof. Asserting it as a highly probable theory due to lack of evidence, they can be completely in the right. Like the theory that Santa doesn't exist, to use my earlier point. Logical, probable, but not totally proven and subject to change if further evidence presents itself. So, lacking evidence for the supernatural, the logical theory would be non-theism. It's a "provisional truth", not unwavering fact, but the best conclusion given the evidence and lack thereof.

Yes, in the original post I thought that the other side was saying that (god doesn't exist because you can't prove it), which is what makes them wrong.

Originally posted by BackFire
Yes, in the original post I thought that the other side was saying that (god doesn't exist because you can't prove it), which is what makes them wrong.

Ah, ok.

actually no they are right until proven wrong

Originally posted by Regret
It seems that for an individual that holds religious belief, and claims to have had a spiritual/religious experience, a statement by the detractor saying God (or other belief) does not exist due to lack of evidence is an absurd argument. Given this, what is the purpose of such an argument's use when discussing the topic with such an individual? Clash of paradigms. The best you could hope for is agree to disagree.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The more extraordinary the claim, the more extraordinary the evidence has to be to support the claim, and the claim of an interaction with a god is a very extraordinary claim. Ordinary evidence, like I witness accounts are not extraordinary, and do not count as evidence when it comes to the claim of an interaction with a god. The person who makes the claim that their account is adequate evidence is confusing what is sufficient for faith with what is needed to convince another person. What he said.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Excellent answer. Co-signed in full. And I like that the distinction is made between what works for the individual and what works for discussion with others.

To add just a bit: If I said that there is a complete lack of evidence for the existence of Santa, a young child's intuitive assertion that he is real doesn't hold up, however strongly they may believe it. And it's the same thing for God. There isn't proof of his nonexistence, and there may never be. But once you perceive the utter lack of evidence for a creator, believing in one based on faith becomes no less silly than the aforementioned child, who at least has youthful naivety as a legitimate excuse. Adults do not. So you claim the belief in a God to be more akin to a child's naivety.

Interesting hmm

actually a brilliant definiton of it....... spot on bullseye
It actually sums it up, does it mean that I think people who believe in a religion are fools, well yes it actually do, you are

Originally posted by anaconda
actually a brilliant definiton of it....... spot on bullseye
It actually sums it up, does it mean that I think people who believe in a religion are fools, well yes it actually do, you are

We get it, you don't like religion. Why do you even post in the Religion Forum? You enter threads here to basically say the same thing in every one.

Originally posted by anaconda
actually no they are right until proven wrong

Not true. If they are going to claim something as fact then THEY are the ones who have to prove their claim, not up to anyone else to disprove them.

They'd be right if they just said "As there is no evidence, I don't believe God exists", though. As they aren't claiming their stance as fact. They're just basing their belief (or lack thereof, in this case) on the evidence at hand.

Originally posted by Newjak
So you claim the belief in a God to be more akin to a child's naivety.

Interesting hmm

It was an analogy. It's obviously more complex, and better justified than Santa or whatever else. But, lacking evidence, which I think it is, the core of the matter remains the same.

There's a reason that percentages of religious belief are inverse to intelligence (not individually, but in general trends). It doesn't imply that religious people are dumb (I would never insinuate that, as there are many intelligent Christians I know) but that as people are exposed to more and more information, their blind faith (however justified) is shed for rational logic.

I've long been convinced that it's exposure to information, not intelligence levels, that determines most types of learning, not just religious....certainly, one who seeks out such information is more likely to grasp it than one who does not. But I've known very intelligent people whose beliefs are rather shallow and indoctrinated from their upbringing, because they've been insulated from counter-arguments. And fairly stupid people who can rationally defend whatever belief (or non-belief) because they happened to have been exposed to different information randomly. And the former is not unlike a child's ignorance of the argument against Santa (which is obviously quite strong), so I feel like the analogy works....not as a critique of human ignorance, but the cultural forces that lead to widespread belief.

why I post here?, what? you dont like people who think differently? and most religious thread here cry out the same spew whole lot of BS, who ever said the religion forum was sole for those who was for religion

dont need to prove claim against something that cant be proven, the burden of proof lies upon the ones who says it exist. All we have to say it doesnt exist, it aint there, who needs to prove the nonexistence agree on the fact part though
guess we disagree on this one, as long as they cant prove it we are at liberty to say it ain exist, just as it is with the loch ness "monsster"

Well, as soon as they say that their stance is factual, it's up to them to prove it, that's all. Their claim becomes positive, as a result, the burden of proof is on them. Unless both say their side is factual, then the burden of proof is on both sides, something that's pretty rare.

The Loch Ness Monster is a bit different, as there has been much effort to actually find it. There is no real effort to find scientific proof of God, and there can't be, as it's purely based on faith. Both sides are based on faith, so no proof exists for either side, so no side is factually right.

Originally posted by anaconda
why I post here?, what? you dont like people who think differently? and most religious thread here cry out the same spew whole lot of BS, who ever said the religion forum was sole for those who was for religion


Who ever said that? Well for one, it's called the Religion Forum.

You don't contribute to discussions in this forum. Interjecting just to say "Religion sucks" and then leaving doesn't advance the conversation.

well not clinging to a religion is actually considered a religion so...........................

well dont flatter yourself on behalf of contribution to this forum. Worry about what you contribute with and leave whatever I contribute up to me

Which is little to nothing, considering that your posts say the same thing.

well Im still of the opinion if they cant prove god there aint one

Originally posted by BackFire
Well, as soon as they say that their stance is factual, it's up to them to prove it, that's all. Their claim becomes positive, as a result, the burden of proof is on them. Unless both say their side is factual, then the burden of proof is on both sides, something that's pretty rare.

The Loch Ness Monster is a bit different, as there has been much effort to actually find it. There is no real effort to find scientific proof of God, and there can't be, as it's purely based on faith. Both sides are based on faith, so no proof exists for either side, so no side is factually right.

Scientific theories (some of them quite plausible) of the origin of the universe seem to infringe upon the faith territory that so many seem to wish to hold sacred. Stephen Hawking is best known for popularizing some of these theories, though they aren't all his.

There was also a book recently called "God: The Failed Hypothesis" that tries to analyze the question from a strictly scientific perspective.

So I agree that we haven't come to the point of overt proof (just a much greater lack of evidence for theists) but there have been attempts to do so.

Originally posted by anaconda
well Im still of the opinion if they cant prove god there aint one

However, the lack of proof is not evidence of anything.

To take it away from the spiritual realm for a second. What if someone is eyewitness to something that would seem impossible? What if for example I saw someone disintegrate before my eyes like a star trek teleporter? I probably couldn't convince anyone else that I'd seen that, but that doesn't change the fact that I had seen it. It's the same with this question. A person who has personal evidence for God's existence can't really share it with the world. It just won't work. As Regret is LDS (like me) I would point to one of the lesser known quotes of Joseph Smith - "I do not blame anyone who does not believe me. If I had not experienced it myself I would not believe it either."

Sometimes saying I saw it just isn't enough.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Scientific theories (some of them quite plausible) of the origin of the universe seem to infringe upon the faith territory that so many seem to wish to hold sacred. Stephen Hawking is best known for popularizing some of these theories, though they aren't all his.

There was also a book recently called "God: The Failed Hypothesis" that tries to analyze the question from a strictly scientific perspective.

So I agree that we haven't come to the point of overt proof (just a much greater lack of evidence for theists) but there have been attempts to do so. I like Stephen Hawking man but are you really going to try and sit there and tell me you take the idea of scientifically looking God away as both good evidence and a good backbone of debate against Faith?

I also hate to tell you this but Scientific Theories are not infringes on faith they are man's best idea of how we can boundary the unknown. Faith and Science are two completely different ideas and anyone trying to link the two should hope to understand they are wrong.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
It was an analogy. It's obviously more complex, and better justified than Santa or whatever else. But, lacking evidence, which I think it is, the core of the matter remains the same.

There's a reason that percentages of religious belief are inverse to intelligence (not individually, but in general trends). It doesn't imply that religious people are dumb (I would never insinuate that, as there are many intelligent Christians I know) but that as people are exposed to more and more information, their blind faith (however justified) is shed for rational logic.

I've long been convinced that it's exposure to information, not intelligence levels, that determines most types of learning, not just religious....certainly, one who seeks out such information is more likely to grasp it than one who does not. But I've known very intelligent people whose beliefs are rather shallow and indoctrinated from their upbringing, because they've been insulated from counter-arguments. And fairly stupid people who can rationally defend whatever belief (or non-belief) because they happened to have been exposed to different information randomly. And the former is not unlike a child's ignorance of the argument against Santa (which is obviously quite strong), so I feel like the analogy works....not as a critique of human ignorance, but the cultural forces that lead to widespread belief.

I can agree with this. Those who don't seek information often have less to draw upon.

But my question is this are you trying to say that those who seek information and obtain information are fools for belief in Faith.


Or are you trying to say that there can be informed people on both sides.

I feel it is the later which if the case I can find to be true but at the same time it can be a statement generalized to both "sides". There can be an atheist who is simply an atheist because that is what they chose to believe without any information on why just that they are.

besides being evidence of lack of proof

Originally posted by anaconda
besides being evidence of lack of proof

it's not even that, just evidence of lack of known proof. There could quite possibly be proof that either we just haven't found yet or are not advanced enough to understand right yet.

Originally posted by Newjak
I can agree with this. Those who don't seek information often have less to draw upon.

But my question is this are you trying to say that those who seek information and obtain information are fools for belief in Faith.


Or are you trying to say that there can be informed people on both sides.

I feel it is the later which if the case I can find to be true but at the same time it can be a statement generalized to both "sides". There can be an atheist who is simply an atheist because that is what they chose to believe without any information on why just that they are.

There's informed people on both sides, but in my experience the informed theists are very informed about defenses for their own beliefs but not the opposing arguments. I've known almost no one who can impersonate a Christian apologist equally as well as they can impersonate a militant atheist, because it's truly scary, and most times not a cultural necessity, to adopt such an antithetical mindset to that which you believe.

People are certainly free to believe anything they want. I'm not attempting to make value judgements on individuals, just explain my reasoning for why we see such widespread belief in religion.

Originally posted by Newjak
I like Stephen Hawking man but are you really going to try and sit there and tell me you take the idea of scientifically looking God away as both good evidence and a good backbone of debate against Faith?

I also hate to tell you this but Scientific Theories are not infringes on faith they are man's best idea of how we can boundary the unknown. Faith and Science are two completely different ideas and anyone trying to link the two should hope to understand they are wrong.

The idea that they are two seperate worlds can be valid, but oftentimes science explains what was previously relegated to faith status, so they collide. In my example, the plausible explanations for the existence of the universe collides with the heretofore assumed idea that there needed to be a creator deity. It doesn't disprove a God, but offers alternative logical explanations. That, combined with lack of observed and verifiable evidence, makes a strong case against theism. Not proof, of course, but a very probable hypothesis.

Originally posted by docb77
I would point to one of the lesser known quotes of Joseph Smith - "I do not blame anyone who does not believe me. If I had not experienced it myself I would not believe it either." That is a refreshingly honest and very respectable statement.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
There's informed people on both sides, but in my experience the informed theists are very informed about defenses for their own beliefs but not the opposing arguments. I've known almost no one who can impersonate a Christian apologist equally as well as they can impersonate a militant atheist, because it's truly scary, and most times not a cultural necessity, to adopt such an antithetical mindset to that which you believe.

People are certainly free to believe anything they want. I'm not attempting to make value judgements on individuals, just explain my reasoning for why we see such widespread belief in religion.
It depends on what you find to be knowledgeable. I find it easier to argue against than for. Especially on a belief system. But yes I do agree that generally Athiest have an easier time in debates.



Originally posted by DigiMark007
The idea that they are two seperate worlds can be valid, but oftentimes science explains what was previously relegated to faith status, so they collide. In my example, the plausible explanations for the existence of the universe collides with the heretofore assumed idea that there needed to be a creator deity. It doesn't disprove a God, but offers alternative logical explanations. That, combined with lack of observed and verifiable evidence, makes a strong case against theism. Not proof, of course, but a very probable hypothesis. Not really.

Faith is Faith, Knowledge is Knowledge. When the two collide it is often with those people who try and stretch the imagination to do so. This of course goes to both sides.

For instance you believe your Theories on how the Universe came to be plausible alternatives to Faith. They are not they are simply knowledge trying to be gained and offer very little in Faith and what Faith is related to. Faith is Belief and Belief knows no bounds while Science is a very bounded discipline. The two can not really be compares and or used to discount each other.

Yeah, the "faith transcends science" card. I agree with you that they don't always have to be in conflict, and that science simply can't touch some matters of faith.

But it's always seemed like a minor cop-out to me, essentially saying "This is what I believe, and even if I can't defend it rationally, I'll continue to believe it steadfastly." In the subjective experience that is our life, all things require at least a small amount of faith. But if it can't be backed by some form of reason, it seems silly to me. Faith need not be blind.

...

I'm not directing that at newjak personally, obviously, since we're discussing the larger cultural ideas of faith and science, not our specific belief systems.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Yeah, the "faith transcends science" card. I agree with you that they don't always have to be in conflict, and that science simply can't touch some matters of faith.

But it's always seemed like a minor cop-out to me, essentially saying "This is what I believe, and even if I can't defend it rationally, I'll continue to believe it steadfastly." In the subjective experience that is our life, all things require at least a small amount of faith. But if it can't be backed by some form of reason, it seems silly to me. Faith need not be blind.

...

I'm not directing that at newjak personally, obviously, since we're discussing the larger cultural ideas of faith and science, not our specific belief systems. That is perfectly understandable and something I do agree with.


Although I do feel that when someone talks about Science or Faith one must choose either or.

This of course does not say you can not speak rationally on either one but they are mutually exclusive of each other.


Or let me say it this way.

If you do not believe in something then how can you have Science disprove something you already don't believe. On the same note if you Believe in something how can you use Science to reenforce what you already believe in terms of Faith.


That just is not what science is. Science is people taking what we can figure out and then applying it to make life better. There is no actual room in Science for non subjective people to try and reafirm or disprove Belief based systems. Simply put Science can not do that. It's not biult to do that.