RE: Evolution vs. Religion (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

rulemylife -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (5/7/2011 5:51:48 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: eihwaz

Personally, I don't believe the existence of God can be conclusively proved or disproved either logically or scientifically.



So if something cannot be proven how does that logically lead anyone to conclude that it just might be true?



tweakabelle -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (5/7/2011 5:53:42 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

Until the proposition "A God exists" is proven true it will remain irrational to believe in it.

Proof, by definition, must be objective and publicly verifiable. God, by definition, is transcendent. So what is actually irrational here is your premise that the proposition "God exists" can be objectively tested.

K.




I have in fact been arguing that religious belief is irrational precisely because it can neither be proved nor disproved rationally. If your memory extends as far back as post # 442, you will find my second sentence there was: “I for one do not believe that the question of the existence of a deity is answerable rationally.“ I have been using the example of the proposition to demonstrate that.

How you square your sad carping with this statement of mine (in the very post you are taking exception to): “At the end of the day, I don’t think it’s really fair to religious belief to evaluate it on rational/logical/scientific/empirical grounds alone.” is probably a matter of intellectual gymnastics for which I am more than happy to grant you exclusive rights-to-use.

Nevertheless, I’m glad that you seem to have gathered the point of the exercise, even if your post demonstrates that you don’t seem to possess any understanding of how we actually arrived at that point. Please don’t let that discourage you though – getting the point is the main thing isn’t it? Some people say it’s OK to use your fingers while adding as long you get the total right.

Well done and keep trying!



rulemylife -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (5/7/2011 6:05:11 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

Until the proposition "A God exists" is proven true it will remain irrational to believe in it.

Proof, by definition, must be objective and publicly verifiable. God, by definition, is transcendent. So what is actually irrational here is your premise that the proposition "God exists" can be objectively tested.

K.


So what you are saying is God exists because no one can prove he does not.



tweakabelle -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (5/7/2011 6:07:22 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Hippiekinkster

quote:

Tweaky: At the end of the day, I don’t think it’s really fair to religious belief to evaluate it on rational/logical/scientific/empirical grounds alone. However, in the public domain, rationality has proved to be one of the best methods to resolve disputes and arrive at sensible decisions that humans have invented or developed.

On what basis do you suggest we evaluate Deism, if not on logical/empirical/scientific grounds?

Good question HK. I wish I had an answer. I've been asking believers for years and not one has been able to suggest anything other than faith.

One thing I do is I try to evaluate which religions produce the nicest people. It's not scientific or rigourous - it is highly subjective, anecdotal and personal. It does suffer from all the flaws of generalising. The outcome has been that Buddhists appear to me to be far and away the gentlest, kindest, most compassionate 'religious' group around with daylight second.

FWIW the results I find with Buddhists are matched only by those I get with non-believers. However I doubt if there's any point in seeking any wider meaning in my personal results.



thishereboi -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (5/7/2011 6:08:25 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

Why is this concept so complicated? Why are we so willing to think we know the answer to something we have no insight into?


Exactly. Everyone's experiences varies. Why are we so quick to discount an experience we have not experienced ourselves?


Maybe they are upset because they don't seem to get what ever the other guy is getting from the experience. Not sure, but some people do seem to get really worked up, at least on here. I don't see it as much in the real world.

Now what do you think the chances are that tweaky will come back and tell us where the government is forcing kids to attend religious schools. My ex was forced to go to Catholic school and she wants to know if she should be pissed at her parents or the state.



rulemylife -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (5/7/2011 6:14:07 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

Why is this concept so complicated? Why are we so willing to think we know the answer to something we have no insight into?


Exactly. Everyone's experiences varies. Why are we so quick to discount an experience we have not experienced ourselves?


Maybe they are upset because they don't seem to get what ever the other guy is getting from the experience. Not sure, but some people do seem to get really worked up, at least on here. I don't see it as much in the real world.

Now what do you think the chances are that tweaky will come back and tell us where the government is forcing kids to attend religious schools. My ex was forced to go to Catholic school and she wants to know if she should be pissed at her parents or the state.



Because people avoid these topics in the real world.  They are not considered polite conversation.  Which is probably why we are all on here, to debate the things that normally are not discussed.



Kirata -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (5/7/2011 6:17:54 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

So what you are saying is God exists because no one can prove he does not.

What you are claiming I'm saying is not what I said.

K.



rulemylife -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (5/7/2011 6:19:43 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

So what you are saying is God exists because no one can prove he does not.

What you are claiming I'm saying is not what I said.

K.


Then clarify it, because it sure sounded that way.



Kirata -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (5/7/2011 6:30:41 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

I have in fact been arguing that religious belief is irrational...

Yes I know, and as I pointed out it's your argument that's irrational. Religious belief is not inherently irrational simply for the cause that the existence of God cannot be proven objectively.

K.



Kirata -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (5/7/2011 6:32:53 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

Then clarify it, because it sure sounded that way.

I'll be happy to if you'll tell me what it is precisely that you think "sounds" that way. I honestly don't have a clue.

K.



Kirata -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (5/7/2011 6:45:19 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
quote:

ORIGINAL: Hippiekinkster

On what basis do you suggest we evaluate Deism, if not on logical/empirical/scientific grounds?

Good question HK. I wish I had an answer... One thing I do is I try to evaluate which religions produce the nicest people... The outcome has been that Buddhists appear to me to be far and away the gentlest, kindest, most compassionate...

Actually, I think that's a very good empirical basis for evaluation. In fact, it has been pursued scientifically by operationalizing the factors that produce optimal interpersonal functioning and determining the areas of the brain that mediate those factors (they are all in the pre-frontal cortex). The next question, of course, was how to help people to develop those areas. And as it turned out, an extraordinarily effective technique was found to be the 2500 year old Buddhist practice of mindfulness meditation.

K.



tweakabelle -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (5/7/2011 7:48:26 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

I have in fact been arguing that religious belief is irrational...

Yes I know, and as I pointed out it's your argument that's irrational. Religious belief is not inherently irrational simply for the cause that the existence of God cannot be proven objectively.

K.

It is irrational to believe in something whose existence cannot be demonstrated rationally. By definition.

It is most definitely irrational to expect me to take anything you have to say seriously if you continue to edit and mangle my sentences selectively and self-servingly, in order to create a strawman argument as you have done above.

This is the second time you have done this recently. You might care to ponder why you feel the need to do this ... it often indicates intellectual bankruptcy. I suspect it often indicates more than a smidgen of moral bankruptcy too. If you care about such things, I give people 3 chances to screw up before I form firm conclusions. I do prefer to avoid being forced to form firm conclusions on these grounds.

I do like to think the best of people. Now some may say that it's irrational to think that way ..... but I prefer it.



Kirata -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (5/7/2011 8:11:14 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

It is irrational to believe in something whose existence cannot be demonstrated rationally. By definition.

By what definition where? And what do you mean by "demonstrated rationally"? Objective proof? Quantum physics has produced objective proof of things that make no rational sense whatsoever. And while I assume you think it perfectly rational to consider yourself conscious, there is little consensus on what consciousness is, no compelling need for it in order to explain human behavior, and no objective proof that it exists beyond personal testimony.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

you continue to edit and mangle my sentences selectively and self-servingly, in order to create a strawman argument...

Bullshit.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

If you care about such things, I give people 3 chances to screw up before I form firm conclusions.

Please form whatever conclusions you wish at your earliest opportunity, and kindly neglect to inform me.

K.



tazzygirl -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (5/7/2011 8:14:35 AM)

quote:

It is irrational to believe in something whose existence cannot be demonstrated rationally. By definition.


Please show which definition you are working from.



Hippiekinkster -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (5/7/2011 8:17:19 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle


quote:

ORIGINAL: Hippiekinkster

quote:

Tweaky: At the end of the day, I don’t think it’s really fair to religious belief to evaluate it on rational/logical/scientific/empirical grounds alone. However, in the public domain, rationality has proved to be one of the best methods to resolve disputes and arrive at sensible decisions that humans have invented or developed.

On what basis do you suggest we evaluate Deism, if not on logical/empirical/scientific grounds?

Good question HK. I wish I had an answer. I've been asking believers for years and not one has been able to suggest anything other than faith.

One thing I do is I try to evaluate which religions produce the nicest people. It's not scientific or rigourous - it is highly subjective, anecdotal and personal. It does suffer from all the flaws of generalising. The outcome has been that Buddhists appear to me to be far and away the gentlest, kindest, most compassionate 'religious' group around with daylight second.

FWIW the results I find with Buddhists are matched only by those I get with non-believers. However I doubt if there's any point in seeking any wider meaning in my personal results.
That has been my experience as well. And I also perceive Buddhists as being, in general, as you describe.

I don't understand how faith (and I really cannot see Buddhism as a "faith", as it lacks a deity to have faith in) can be evaluated by any other means than scientific scrutiny. Full Circle made a point about a box with unknown contents. It sounds like a good point until one considers that the box exists in reality (empirical evidence), and that the contents of the box are knowable (deductive reasoning), assuming that the box can be opened (and if it cannot, is there a reason to even bother with it anymore?).

I'm not sure I want to get into that can of worms that "rationality" has become in this thread, other than to note that that word is not a synonym of Logic.
(btw, want to tell you I much enjoyed your posts on human traits, although it was over my head)



Hippiekinkster -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (5/7/2011 8:23:50 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
quote:

ORIGINAL: Hippiekinkster

On what basis do you suggest we evaluate Deism, if not on logical/empirical/scientific grounds?

Good question HK. I wish I had an answer... One thing I do is I try to evaluate which religions produce the nicest people... The outcome has been that Buddhists appear to me to be far and away the gentlest, kindest, most compassionate...

Actually, I think that's a very good empirical basis for evaluation. In fact, it has been pursued scientifically by operationalizing the factors that produce optimal interpersonal functioning and determining the areas of the brain that mediate those factors (they are all in the pre-frontal cortex). The next question, of course, was how to help people to develop those areas. And as it turned out, an extraordinarily effective technique was found to be the 2500 year old Buddhist practice of mindfulness meditation.

K.

To be sure I understand you, are you speaking of evaluating "Faith", "a faith", or "a religion"?



Edwynn -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (5/7/2011 8:39:49 AM)




FR


If we get to the issue of logic, I've not yet seen the logic (in this thread or anywhere else) that would support the notion that measurement of physical phenomena is to be the indication or measure of what is inherently a non-physical phenomenon.









Kirata -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (5/7/2011 8:45:28 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Hippiekinkster

To be sure I understand you, are you speaking of evaluating "Faith", "a faith", or "a religion"?

None of the above, or at least not directly. I was speaking (as was tweakabelle) of evaluating which religions produce the nicest people -- i.e., people who manifest empathy, insight, and compassion -- because it seems to me, too, that one might not unreasonably suspect that wholesome beliefs (whether religious or otherwise) would tend to correlate with such personal qualities.

I'll add, however, that in practice it takes a more than just wholesome beliefs (again, religious or otherwise). It takes discipline. And, too, there is more to being an optimally functioning human being than just being "nice".

K.





Hippiekinkster -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (5/7/2011 9:08:50 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwynn If we get to the issue of logic, I've not yet seen the logic (in this thread or anywhere else) that would support the notion that measurement of physical phenomena is to be the indication or measure of what is inherently a non-physical phenomenon.

A person on the Atheist vs. Theist group on another site said something similar;
"It is a matter of faith to assume that everything in the Universe can be successfully subjected to the lens of rational and scientific inquiry.

It is also a matter of faith to assume that not everything can."



tazzygirl -> RE: Evolution vs. Religion (5/7/2011 9:16:28 AM)

Why does it have to be an "Atheist vs Theist"?



Page: <<   < prev  23 24 [25] 26 27   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875