ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 14th August 2019, 05:40 PM   #161
Norman Alexander
Philosopher
 
Norman Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 5,995
Science deals in real evidence. Not made-up stuff or a mish-mash of words trying to be stuff.

If you have evidence of whatever the heck you are trying to show, please present it. And while you are at it, please tell us what it is you are trying to show. Because you have done neither so far.
__________________
...our governments are just trying to protect us from terror. In the same way that someone banging a hornets’ nest with a stick is trying to protect us from hornets. Frankie Boyle, Guardian, July 2015
Norman Alexander is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2019, 05:40 PM   #162
Ricardo
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Posts: 484
Originally Posted by The Greater Fool View Post
Ricardo, as god I wish to help your cause...

Present your best evidence, that you are able to express and defend.

Chance favors the prepared mind.

Let's see how these skeptics deal with your evidence.
but why not rationalistic evidence?
Ricardo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2019, 05:45 PM   #163
The Greater Fool
Illuminator
 
The Greater Fool's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Scottsdale, AZ, USA, North America, Earth, Sol, Milky Way
Posts: 3,969
Originally Posted by Ricardo View Post
but why not rationalistic evidence?
Why not?

Present your best evidence. WHATEVER the form.

But, you must understand and defend your evidence. Such is what these 'skeptics' demand.

Is it so unreasonable for them to expect you to understand your evidence?
__________________
- "Who is the greater fool? The fool? Or the one arguing with the fool?" [Various; Uknown]
- "The only way to win is not to play." [Tsig quoting 'War Games']
The Greater Fool is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2019, 05:46 PM   #164
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 63,417
Originally Posted by Ricardo View Post
but why not rationalistic evidence?
There's no such thing as "rationalistic" evidence. There is only sufficient evidence, or insufficient evidence.
__________________
Self-described nerd. Pronouns: He/Him

We can't go back. We don't understand everything yet.
"Everything" is a little ambitious. We barely understand anything.
Yeah. But that's what the first part of understanding everything looks like.
- xkcd Time (frame 1071-3)
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2019, 05:46 PM   #165
Ricardo
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Posts: 484
Originally Posted by Norman Alexander View Post
Science deals in real evidence. Not made-up stuff or a mish-mash of words trying to be stuff.

If you have evidence of whatever the heck you are trying to show, please present it. And while you are at it, please tell us what it is you are trying to show. Because you have done neither so far.
Would near death experience not be empirical evidence?
Ricardo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2019, 05:50 PM   #166
Pope130
Illuminator
 
Pope130's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Oregon
Posts: 3,099
Originally Posted by Ricardo View Post
In philosophy, rationalism is the epistemological view that "regards reason as the chief source and test of knowledge" or "any view appealing to reason as a source of knowledge or justification".More formally, rationalism is defined as a methodology or a theory "in which the criterion of the truth is not sensory but intellectual and deductive".In an old controversy, rationalism was opposed to empiricism, where the rationalists believed that reality has an intrinsically logical structure. Because of this, the rationalists argued that certain truths exist and that the intellect can directly grasp these truths. That is to say, rationalists asserted that certain rational principles exist in logic, mathematics, ethics, and metaphysics that are so fundamentally true that denying them causes one to fall into contradiction. The rationalists had such a high confidence in reason that empirical proof and physical evidence were regarded as unnecessary to ascertain certain truths – in other words, "there are significant ways in which our concepts and knowledge are gained independently of sense experience"
Ricardo. It is considered polite to attribute the source of quoted material (in this case Wikipedia), lest some mistake it for your own creation and credit, or criticize, you for the content.
Pope130 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2019, 05:51 PM   #167
Ricardo
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Posts: 484
and the experiences of PHD Sam Parnia? wouldn't that be empirical evidence?
Ricardo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2019, 05:53 PM   #168
Ricardo
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Posts: 484
Thumbs up

Originally Posted by Ricardo View Post
and the experiences of PHD Sam Parnia? wouldn't that be empirical evidence?
sorry I'm new to forum! thank you
Ricardo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2019, 05:54 PM   #169
Ricardo
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Posts: 484
Originally Posted by Pope130 View Post
Ricardo. It is considered polite to attribute the source of quoted material (in this case Wikipedia), lest some mistake it for your own creation and credit, or criticize, you for the content.
Ricardo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2019, 05:57 PM   #170
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 63,417
Originally Posted by Ricardo View Post
Would near death experience not be empirical evidence?
If it is carefully documented, repeated under controlled conditions and published in a peer-reviewed journal, it might be considered sufficient evidence of the existence of consciousness separate from the body.
__________________
Self-described nerd. Pronouns: He/Him

We can't go back. We don't understand everything yet.
"Everything" is a little ambitious. We barely understand anything.
Yeah. But that's what the first part of understanding everything looks like.
- xkcd Time (frame 1071-3)
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2019, 06:06 PM   #171
Norman Alexander
Philosopher
 
Norman Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 5,995
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
If it is carefully documented, repeated under controlled conditions and published in a peer-reviewed journal, it might be considered sufficient evidence of the existence of consciousness separate from the body.
Q1. How many times do you have to kill the subject to invoke this condition?
__________________
...our governments are just trying to protect us from terror. In the same way that someone banging a hornets’ nest with a stick is trying to protect us from hornets. Frankie Boyle, Guardian, July 2015
Norman Alexander is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2019, 06:08 PM   #172
Norman Alexander
Philosopher
 
Norman Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 5,995
Originally Posted by Ricardo View Post
Would near death experience not be empirical evidence?
Of itself, no.

I was going to explain why. But you would learn better yourself if you went and researched this yourself. Don't look for all the positive reviews. Look for the whole field including the negative reviews.
__________________
...our governments are just trying to protect us from terror. In the same way that someone banging a hornets’ nest with a stick is trying to protect us from hornets. Frankie Boyle, Guardian, July 2015
Norman Alexander is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2019, 06:15 PM   #173
Norman Alexander
Philosopher
 
Norman Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 5,995
Here, I'll give you a leg-up.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Near-death_experience

Quote:
NDE's and especially OBE's are cited as evidence of disembodied spirits, separate consciousness, and, therefore, life after death. Proponents claim the consistency of testimonials and the life-changing effects indicate that NDE's are real. Since by definition an NDE is a "subjective experience," such experiences are also by definition non-repeatable and non-provable, though not necessarily erroneous. Thus debating with an NDE'er about the accuracy of his or her experience sometimes becomes an exercise in futility.
__________________
...our governments are just trying to protect us from terror. In the same way that someone banging a hornets’ nest with a stick is trying to protect us from hornets. Frankie Boyle, Guardian, July 2015
Norman Alexander is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2019, 06:20 PM   #174
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 63,417
Originally Posted by Norman Alexander View Post
Q1. How many times do you have to kill the subject to invoke this condition?
Enough times to sufficiently demonstrate the hypothesis.
__________________
Self-described nerd. Pronouns: He/Him

We can't go back. We don't understand everything yet.
"Everything" is a little ambitious. We barely understand anything.
Yeah. But that's what the first part of understanding everything looks like.
- xkcd Time (frame 1071-3)
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2019, 06:24 PM   #175
Ricardo
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Posts: 484
I lost ! I have no empirical evidence to offer! It is impossible to convince a true skeptic! sorry everyone i am new to forum .. hope your understanding!
Ricardo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2019, 06:25 PM   #176
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist.
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 26,561
Originally Posted by Ricardo View Post
Limitations of the Scientific Method
Clearly, the scientific method is a powerful tool, but it does have its limitations. These limitations are based on the fact that a hypothesis must be testable and falsifiable and that experiments and observations be repeatable. This places certain topics beyond the reach of the scientific method. Science cannot prove or refute the existence of God or any other supernatural entity.


So, why is there any reason to speculate about any such things? Let alone to choose a side.
__________________
I have the honor to be
Your Obdt. St

L. Leader
Loss Leader is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2019, 06:26 PM   #177
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 63,417
Originally Posted by Ricardo View Post
I lost ! I have no empirical evidence to offer! It is impossible to convince a true skeptic! sorry everyone i am new to forum .. hope your understanding!
That's right. It's impossible to convince a skeptic that something that isn't real exists.

If it were real, there would be evidence of it, and we would be convinced. That's how science works.
__________________
Self-described nerd. Pronouns: He/Him

We can't go back. We don't understand everything yet.
"Everything" is a little ambitious. We barely understand anything.
Yeah. But that's what the first part of understanding everything looks like.
- xkcd Time (frame 1071-3)
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2019, 06:29 PM   #178
Ricardo
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Posts: 484
I believe in the afterlife because I am an Rationalist. Empirical evidence does not yet exist!
Ricardo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2019, 06:29 PM   #179
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 63,417
Originally Posted by Ricardo View Post
I believe in the afterlife because I am an Rationalist. Empirical evidence does not yet exist!
If you believe in something for which no evidence exists, then you are not behaving rationally.
__________________
Self-described nerd. Pronouns: He/Him

We can't go back. We don't understand everything yet.
"Everything" is a little ambitious. We barely understand anything.
Yeah. But that's what the first part of understanding everything looks like.
- xkcd Time (frame 1071-3)
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2019, 06:30 PM   #180
Norman Alexander
Philosopher
 
Norman Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 5,995
You would be amazed at the number of things or phenomena many people swear do not exist that skeptics will accept because of the plethora of evidence that is available. Seriously, lots of things. But that evidence is quite reliable even though it was hard-won.

Here's how it works:

__________________
...our governments are just trying to protect us from terror. In the same way that someone banging a hornets’ nest with a stick is trying to protect us from hornets. Frankie Boyle, Guardian, July 2015

Last edited by Norman Alexander; 14th August 2019 at 06:31 PM.
Norman Alexander is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2019, 06:33 PM   #181
Ricardo
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Posts: 484
I'm already going through a cognitive dissonance! rationalism will not help me !!
Ricardo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2019, 06:41 PM   #182
Ricardo
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Posts: 484
Belief disconfirmation
The contradiction of a belief, ideal, or system of values causes cognitive dissonance that can be resolved by changing the challenged belief yet, instead of effecting change, the resultant mental stress restores psychological consonance to the person by misperception, rejection, or refutation of the contradiction, seeking moral support from people who share the contradicted beliefs or acting to persuade other people that the contradiction is unreal.
The early hypothesis of belief contradiction presented in When Prophecy Fails (1956) reported that faith deepened among the members of an apocalyptic religious cult, despite the failed prophecy of an alien spacecraft soon to land on Earth to rescue them from earthly corruption. At the determined place and time, the cult assembled; they believed that only they would survive planetary destruction; yet the spaceship did not arrive to Earth. The confounded prophecy caused them acute cognitive-dissonance: Had they been victims of a hoax? Had they vainly donated away their material possessions? To resolve the dissonance between apocalyptic, end-of-the-world religious beliefs and earthly, material reality, most of the cult restored their psychological consonance by choosing to believe a less mentally-stressful idea to explain the missed landing: that the aliens had given planet Earth a second chance at existence, which, in turn, empowered them to re-direct their religious cult to environmentalism and social advocacy to end human damage to planet Earth. On overcoming the confounded belief by changing to global environmentalism, the cult increased in numbers by proselytism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognit...isconfirmation
Ricardo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2019, 06:44 PM   #183
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 63,417
Ladies and gentlemen, I think we might have just witnessed a small step in the right direction.
__________________
Self-described nerd. Pronouns: He/Him

We can't go back. We don't understand everything yet.
"Everything" is a little ambitious. We barely understand anything.
Yeah. But that's what the first part of understanding everything looks like.
- xkcd Time (frame 1071-3)
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2019, 06:57 PM   #184
8enotto
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Mexico
Posts: 1,030
Originally Posted by Ricardo View Post
I'm already going through a cognitive dissonance! rationalism will not help me !!
Its not a bad thing to watch an idea crash and burn. It's a positive learning experience. I watched my childhood hopes of paranormal stuff die a slow agonizing death of starvation. No facts, no physical evidence and no way of testing the evidence provided by exspurtz, it wasn't repeatable.

I had to accept bigfoot and aliens were as real as ghosts....
I am watching a hokie paranormal show right now that is based on rehearsed acting and odd use of electric devices to detect the non existent.


It's all cheap little psych games and playing.on base fears while attempting to suggest what the cameras show as other worldly. Except sounds off camera and light tricks are all they really have.
8enotto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2019, 07:03 PM   #185
Dr.Sid
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Olomouc, Czech Republic
Posts: 1,994
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
STOP. POSTING. LINKS.

POST. YOUR. OWN. ARGUMENTS.
Chill out man. He already said he's no researcher !
Dr.Sid is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2019, 07:10 PM   #186
Dr.Sid
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Olomouc, Czech Republic
Posts: 1,994
Originally Posted by Ricardo View Post
I believe in the afterlife because I am an Rationalist. Empirical evidence does not yet exist!
You believe in afterlive, because you don't want to accept death. As billions before you. No shame in that.
But unless there is empirical evidence, it's just a wish.
Dr.Sid is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2019, 04:17 AM   #187
Ricardo
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Posts: 484
So aren't all religions based on empirical evidence? So is there no reason for religious to believe?
Ricardo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2019, 05:06 AM   #188
IanS
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,843
Originally Posted by Ricardo View Post
So aren't all religions based on empirical evidence? So is there no reason for religious to believe?


No. None of them are based on any genuine evidence of what the religions claim.

Take Christianity for example - the central claim is that Jesus rose from the dead. All Christians apparently believe that. And they all believe the bible contains totally convincing evidence for that. But of course the truth is that the bible does not contain any honest evidence of any such resurrection at all.

The same is true for Islamic religion. It's based on the belief that the Koran (and Hadiths) contain evidence of various miracles. But again, there is in fact no such credible evidence anywhere in the Koran.

In both religions (Christianity & Islam), all that is contained within their holy books is a lot of claims from anonymous writers who say that other people had once witnessed all the miracles ... but surprisingly (actually, not surprisingly) none of those people who were said to be the witnesses ever wrote to confirm that they had ever witnessed any such things at all.
IanS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2019, 05:18 AM   #189
IanS
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,843
Originally Posted by Ricardo View Post
I believe in the afterlife because I am an Rationalist. Empirical evidence does not yet exist!

All genuine evidence shows that there is no such afterlife.

All evidence from medical research (and from all of science) shows that once you are truly dead, and where you are not being kept alive by modern-day medics using advanced medical techniques, then you stay dead with no afterlife and no genuine evidence of persisting consciousness ...

... all modern evidence shows that once the brain is dead and no longer able to function, then all consciousness ends too. There is no genuine evidence of consciousness existing as any sort of thinking soul after death.
IanS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2019, 05:52 AM   #190
Dr.Sid
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Olomouc, Czech Republic
Posts: 1,994
Originally Posted by Ricardo View Post
So aren't all religions based on empirical evidence? So is there no reason for religious to believe?
Most believer I met had some unusual experience, which they based their faith on. But it was always just them not being critical enough. And wanting to believe in the first place.
In some cases it also can be just scam. Not only you want to believe in afterlife. But the religions also want you to believe in them, simply for material profit. Which is frankly case of most modern religions, including those you have linked.
Dr.Sid is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2019, 06:42 AM   #191
Ricardo
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Posts: 484
In the future, can religions be based on empirical evidence?
Ricardo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2019, 06:45 AM   #192
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 19,851
Originally Posted by Ricardo View Post
In the future, can religions be based on empirical evidence?
If it's based on empirical evidence it's not a religion.

WORDS MEAN THINGS.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2019, 06:57 AM   #193
Ricardo
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Posts: 484
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
If it's based on empirical evidence it's not a religion.

WORDS MEAN THINGS.
In the future would a union between science and religion be possible?
Ricardo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2019, 07:02 AM   #194
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 19,851
Originally Posted by Ricardo View Post
In the future would a union between science and religion be possible?
No. Not without redefining one of them into pure meaningless, which I already get is your whole goal.

Again we've hard our share of "But what if I define religion/God into something either totally meaningless or completely different from any use of it?" types before. You're not even a particularly original version of it.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2019, 07:23 AM   #195
IanS
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,843
Originally Posted by Ricardo View Post
In the future, can religions be based on empirical evidence?

Do you mean "is it possible that one day in the future we might find real evidence that some sort of miraculous intelligent god exists?". If that's your question then the answer is that what we have already discovered is a vast mountain of evidence to show that such god beliefs are entirely false (just ancient ignorant superstitions) ...

... so why would you want to dispute the totally overwhelming evidence that has already been discovered against all such god beliefs? What would be your honest basis for believing that all current evidence is wrong, and that some day in some distant future we will discover some other evidence to show a god actually exists? … why bother with that belief/hope when then the current evidential odds (just as a rough guess) are already a billion-to-one against any such supernatural god?

Maybe you don't accept a figure like a billion-to-one? OK, well so far science has investigated literally millions if not billions of situations, claims, beliefs etc., and found that none of them were true where they claimed supernatural causes. Instead we found that all such claims/situations/ events/ processes/ beliefs are quite easily and completely explained by entirely natural causes (nothing supernatural involved at all) … so why, if you are being honest with yourself, would you want to believe the one-in-a-billion chance that the science is all wrong? … why would you want to actually base your life and the way you live (eg living under religious belief) on such hopelessly bad odds as that?
IanS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2019, 07:54 AM   #196
Lithrael
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,552
Yeah, file it under ‘it’s not literally impossible but so far, only very wonky handwritten signs point to yes, and we’ve all been looking pretty hard.’
Lithrael is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2019, 07:55 AM   #197
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 19,851
But whatever you do DON'T BE CERTAIN! Wouldn't want to send anyone off into an existential crisis hissy fit.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2019, 09:16 AM   #198
Ricardo
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Posts: 484
Would quantum physics have anything to do with it?
Ricardo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2019, 09:21 AM   #199
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 19,851
Originally Posted by Ricardo View Post
Would quantum physics have anything to do with it?
Wow not even a pause just.... straight into it.

Listen if I want this much Woo and word salad thrown at me it needs to be on a bottle of soap. It least that's useful.

Again as Deepak Chopra cosplay's go, it's not even original.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2019, 09:29 AM   #200
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 29,448
Originally Posted by Ricardo View Post
Would quantum physics have anything to do with it?
No.

Dave
__________________
Inspiring discussion of Sharknado is not a good sign for the audience expectations of your new high-concept SF movie sequel.

- Myriad
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:31 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.